BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, ,determined plaintiff (Fox) was not entitled to the protections of rent stabilization because the lease was in the name of a corporate entitled formed by the plaintiff and plaintiff was not named in the lease: In 2008, at Fox’s suggestion, a renewal lease was entered into […]
