You are here: / / THE TENANT HARASSMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SUPREME...
, , ,

THE TENANT HARASSMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SUPREME COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THAT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court, determined the tenant harassment cause of action should not have been dismissed, noting that Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction for that cause of action:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action, which alleged harassment in violation of Local Law No. 7 (2008) of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2005[d]). Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that cause of action. Furthermore, the court was vested with subject matter jurisdiction to make a determination on that cause of action … .Akter v Zara Realty Holding Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01434, Second Dept 3-9-22

​Practice Point: Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tenant harassment cause of action pursuant to the the NYC Administrative Code.

 

You might also like
MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL’S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Employer Considered Accommodation for Plaintiff’s Injury—Summary Judgment to Employer Should Not Have Been Granted
Defendant’s Submissions Did Not Rebut the Presumption of Receipt of the Summons and Complaint Properly Sent by Ordinary Mail
LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE VILLAGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE STATE-WIDE VILLAGE LAW.
30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
A Party Can Not Appeal from a Portion of an Order Where the Party Is Not Aggrieved by the Order
The Town’s Actual or Constructive Notice of a Sidewalk Defect Does Not Obviate the Written Notice Requirement

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE; THEIR MOTION... IN THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...