You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE OWNERS OF RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE DEFENDANT VILLAGE ALLEGING, AMONG OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION, VIOLATIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE VILLAGE “NUISANCE LAW” WHICH WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT INFRINGED ON THE TENANTS’ RIGHT TO CALL THE POLICE (“NUISANCE POINTS” WERE ASSESSED FOR CALLS TO THE POLICE); THE ACTION BY THE RENTAL-PROPERTY OWNERS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of this action brought by owners of rental properties in the defendant village asserting, among other causes of action, violations of their constitutional rights stemming from a local law (Nuisance Law) which was declared unconstitutional:

… [This court] declar[ed] that the Nuisance Law was “overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment” … . As to the finding of facial invalidity under the First Amendment, this Court held that, because the Nuisance Law did not prohibit the assessment of nuisance points against a property for police involvement thereat, the law violated the right of plaintiffs’ tenants to petition the government for redress of grievances by deterring them from calling the police in response to crimes committed at their properties … . * * *

… Supreme Court properly dismissed the first cause of action for malicious prosecution. * * *

As for the First Amendment claim, Supreme Court found …that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their tenants’ constitutional rights. * * *

With respect to the selective enforcement claim, nothing in the record suggests that plaintiffs were singled out for enforcement of the Nuisance Law due to the population of tenants to which they rented — i.e., individuals whose rent was paid by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services. * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ due process claim, to the extent based upon defendants’ alleged failure to follow the procedures set forth in the Nuisance Law, is not actionable. Pirro v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Groton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01358, Third Dept 3-3-22

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a stipulation of settlement in open court was valid, despite a Court of Appeals decision which ruled the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) cannot be applied retroactively. The retroactive application of the HSTPA (to the stipulation) was deemed a “mistake of law” which is not a ground for invalidating a stipulation:

On … the date of trial, the court facilitated settlement negotiations and the parties placed the material terms of their settlement on the record. “The in-court oral stipulation made here . . . evidences [defendant]’s unconditional agreement, through authorized counsel, to settle” for a sum certain of $7.5 million, provide leases at specific monthly rents for plaintiffs still living in the building, and enter into a confidentiality agreement … . “[W]hen the transcript . . . is read in its entirety, it is clear that what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and not simply an agreement to agree” … . “The fact that it is necessary for the parties to exchange general releases and execute a confidentiality agreement does not render the agreement invalid”… , nor does the parties’ representation that they would “execute formal settlement papers” demonstrate that there was no agreement on material terms … . …

We reject defendant’s contention that the decision of the Court of Appeals … , issued one month afterwards, requires that the settlement be vacated. While that decision held that the retroactive application of the [HSTPA] would violate due process …, previous interpretations to the contrary constituted “a mistake as to the law,” which is insufficient grounds for vacating a stipulation … . Nieborak v W54-7 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01397, First Dept 3-3-22

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenants stated claims for tenant (statutory) harassment, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with failure to provide electricity, water, heat and ventilation:

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-2005 (d) and 27-2115 (m) … . Namely, it sufficiently alleges that defendants failed to provide essential services, including electricity, water, heat, and ventilation, resulting in violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, and that that failure was calculated to and did cause plaintiffs to vacate their apartment … . …

Defendants do not oppose the reinstatement of the claims for private nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress, opting to litigate those claims on the merits. However, contrary to defendants’ contention, punitive damages may be appropriate under both causes of action if the alleged acts are shown to be intentional or malicious … . Carlson v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-22-22

 

,

THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION BE STATED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE; EVICTION ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the landlord did not comply with the HUD regulation requiring that a notice of termination of a lease state the reasons for the termination with enough specificity to allow the tenant to mount a defense. The issue was raised by respondent-tenant’s oral general denial:

In our view, the notice of termination was deficient, as it did not set forth the factual predicates underlying the alleged violation of the lease terms, instead merely paraphrasing the lease and the underlying regulation … . No specific incident is described in the notice, nor are any specific facts. The regulatory standard of requiring “enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense” demands more detail as to the nature of the asserted misconduct (24 CFR 247.4 [a] [2]). Matter of Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v Buchanan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01087, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , ,

THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Loft Board properly remitted the matter for further proceedings in this proceeding involving a settlement agreement in which the tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage:

… [T]he matter [is] remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us … . Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 00957, Ct App 2-15-22

 

,

PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the the Loft Law did not prohibit the landlord, Aurora, from terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the loft by a holdover proceeding. The opinion and the dissenting opinion are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Aurora Associates LLC, the owner of Loft 3B at 78 Reade Street in Manhattan, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate the tenancy of the current occupant. Summary judgment was granted to the tenant on the ground that Aurora could not terminate his tenancy because the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization. We must decide whether a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulation provisions of that statute by operation of a sale of the prior tenant’s rights and improvements is otherwise subject to rent stabilization. We hold that it is not … . * * *

As the Housing Court Judge explained, “[T]he core of the parties’ dispute is the rent regulatory status of the subject premises” because “[I]f the subject premises is unregulated, termination of a tenancy pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a is a remedy available to Petitioner,” and “[i]f the subject premises is rent-stabilized, RPL … 232-a is not a remedy available to Petitioner.” * * *

Here, the prior owner purchased rights and improvements in a particular unit in this Loft Law-eligible building, removing that unit from the Loft Law’s rent regulation provisions, entitling Aurora to charge a market rent and, pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a, to regain possession of the apartment by means of a holdover proceeding. Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00958, CtApp 2-15-22

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the sales counter and display unit installed on the leased premises was a permanent or trade fixture. Supreme Court had ruled the counter and display unit was a trade fixture which was properly removed by the tenant at the end of the lease:

… [T]he defendants [tenants] failed to establish as a matter of law that the sales counter and customer display unit is a trade fixture that they properly removed from the premises at the end of the lease term. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that Medi-Fair [tenant], pursuant to the express and agreed upon terms of the lease regarding the tenant fit-up, paid extra for Wallkill [landlord] to construct and install the customized sales counter and customer display unit does not, under the circumstances, make it a trade fixture as a matter of law … . Rather, read together, the articles of the lease pertaining to the tenant fit-up, alterations, and redelivery of the premises at the end of the lease term raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties intended items such as the sales counter and customer display unit annexed to the premises by Wallkill [landlord] as part of the initial, interior construction and tenant fit-up, as compared with any post-occupancy alterations and/or additions of fixtures to the premises by Medi-Fair [tenant], to be permanent fixtures of the premises. Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC v Medi-Fair, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00899, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A RENTAL PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BECAUSE THE PROVISION ALLOWS THE LANDLORD TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE BY A STATE-LICENSED ENGINEER, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town code provision which required a property inspection before issuance of a rental permit is not unconstitutional. Although the provision would be unconstitutional if an inspection by the town building inspector was required (a mandatory warrantless search), the provision also allows the landlord to have the property inspected by a state-licensed engineer:

It is well-settled that “the imposition of a penalty upon a landlord for renting his [or her] premises without first consenting to a warrantless search violates the property owner’s Fourth Amendment rights” … . Here, however, the Town’s rental permit law does not “expressly require . . . an inspection before the issuance or renewal of a permit” … , since a property owner who is applying for a rental permit has the option of obtaining a certification from a state-licensed professional engineer in lieu of submitting to an inspection by a Town building inspector … . Accordingly, the provisions did not violate constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures … . Infinite Green, Inc. v Town of Babylon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00407, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

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