You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK CAN BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE NYC APARTMENTS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the four-year lookback period can be applied to determine whether there was a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments which, under Roberts (12 NY3d 270 [2009]) should not have been deregulated because the landlord was receiving “J-51” tax benefits. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied and plaintiff’s motion to certify a class was properly granted:

… [I]n pre-Roberts cases where landlords relied on DHCR [NYC Division of Housing & Community Renewal] guidance there could be no fraudulent scheme to deregulate. * * *

[W]e have not extended this rule to cases decided after Roberts … . To the contrary, our jurisprudence holds that an owner may not flout the teachings of Roberts. * * *

The hallmarks of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate are present here. … Defendant deregulated the apartment after Roberts was decided and did not re-register with DHCR, despite receiving J-51 tax benefits … . During the four-year period preceding commencement of the lawsuit, plaintiff was still not given a rent-stabilized lease. … Defendant’s actions cannot be deemed to be prompt compliance. Rather, at this stage, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a six-year scheme to illegally deregulate 27 units or approximately 32% of the building. Montera v KMR Amsterdam LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-9-21

 

, ,

EVICTION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY FOR PETITIONER’S MOMENTARY LOSS OF CONTROL DURING WHICH SHE STRUCK A NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) should not have penalized petitioner for striking a NYCHA employee by evicting her:

The termination of the tenancy of petitioner, a now 64-year-old woman who has been a NYCHA tenant without incident for more than 40 years and will be evicted from her home along with her adult daughter because she suffered a momentary loss of control when she struck respondent’s employee, whom she believed to be in a relationship with her former partner, is “so disproportionate to [her] offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” … .

Given the facts presented as well as the lack of any evidence presented by NYCHA that petitioner’s continued occupancy presents a concern to the safety of NYCHA employees or a risk to the other NYCHA tenants, this Court finds that a lesser penalty is warranted … . Matter of Bryant v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 00521, First Dept 2-2-21

 

,

IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING, IN A PRE-MEDITATED, TARGETED ATTACK DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSULATE THE LANDLORD FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN LOCK ON THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR DOOR; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH A LINE OF 1ST DEPARTMENT CASES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, disagreeing with a line of First Department decisions, determined a targeted, premeditated attack on a building resident is not necessarily an intervening cause which insulates the landlord from liability. Here plaintiff’s decedent was targeted by her former fiance (Boney) who set her, himself and one of her children on fire in the hallway outside plaintiff’s decedent’s apartment. There was evidence the exterior door to the building did not have a functioning lock. The Second Department held that the defendant landlord (the New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the broken lock was a proximate cause of the attack and whether the attack was foreseeable:

The test in determining summary judgment motions involving negligent door security should … not focus on whether the crime committed within the building was “targeted” or “random,” but whether or not, and to what extent, an alleged negligently maintained building entrance was a concurrent contributory factor in the happening of the criminal occurrence. In examining whether there is a triable issue of fact as to foreseeability and proximate cause requiring trial, a jury could conceivably conclude that the chronically broken lock at the building’s front door provided Boney with an opportunity to attack the decedent, in a manner that might not otherwise have been possible, and that NYCHA could have foreseeably anticipated that its broken front door lock would result in the entry of intruders into the building for the commission of criminal activities against known or unknown specific tenants … . All of these actions should be examined sui generis, recognizing the unique facts of individualized matters, rather than simplistically or arbitrarily channeling them into either “targeted” or “random” criminal boxes that do not accommodate the factual nuances that may vary from case to case. Scurry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND LEGISLATION PROHIBITING EVICTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC APPLIED TO A HOLDOVER TENANT WHO HAD ENTERED AN AGREEMENT TO VACATE THE APARTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the Executive Orders and legislation prohibiting evictions during the COVID pandemic precluded the eviction of a holdover tenant based upon an agreement by the tenant to vacate the apartment:

On August 27, 2020, petitioner commenced a summary eviction proceeding seeking a warrant of eviction to remove respondents from the premises (see RPAPL 711 [1]). At an appearance before Supreme Court on September 17, 2020, the parties, with the assistance of counsel, reached an agreement in which respondents agreed to vacate the premises on or before October 2, 2020. Pursuant to the agreement, the court issued a warrant of eviction, effective October 3, 2020, to be executed if respondents failed to vacate. Respondents remained on the premises and, on October 5, 2020, the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, in accordance with the warrant, served respondents a 14-day notice indicating that the eviction would take place on October 21, 2020. After counsel for respondent Kaia Humphrey (hereinafter respondent) contacted the County Attorney’s office regarding the suspension of evictions via a new executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, petitioner moved for an order seeking, among other things, enforcement of the parties’ agreement to vacate and of the warrant of eviction. Following a virtual appearance on October 20, 2020, Supreme Court granted petitioner’s motion and ordered enforcement of the warrant of eviction. Respondent appeals. * * *

Because these executive orders prohibit enforcement of residential evictions, without any exceptions for holdover proceedings or warrants issued based on stipulations, Supreme Court was precluded from ordering enforcement of the warrant to evict respondents. Further executive orders have extended the stay on enforcements to December 3, 2020 … . …

Furthermore, on December 28, 2020, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 … . That act, which was effective immediately … , allows tenants to file a hardship declaration, which will prevent an eviction until at least May 1, 2021 … . Matter of Cabrera v Humphrey, 2021 NY Slip Op 00358, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord (West 16th) was not liable for an injury from a non-defective cellar door which closed and struck plaintiff’s head:

It is well established that an out-of-possession landlord like West 16th “is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it (1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … .

The lease did not obligate West 16th to maintain or repair the cellar doors or to install an auxiliary safety device on the cellar doors, which were fully functional and not broken in any way. …

Further, the alleged defect is not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision. … [W]e have previously held that the failure to install a safety device to hold such doors open—the precise negligence alleged against West 16th herein—was “not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … . Matias v West 16th Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08000, First Dept 12-29-20

 

, ,

ONCE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS PROPERLY SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PURCHASE, THE LANDLORD, WHO IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO HONOR THE OPTION, NO LONGER HAD A RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ cause of action for return of the rent paid to defendant after the plaintiffs exercised their option to purchase the property should have been granted. Plaintiffs were defendant landlord’s tenants. Plaintiffs sought to exercise an option to purchase the property which was in the lease. Once the plaintiffs properly exercised the option to purchase, the landlord, who refused to honor the option, could no longer seek payment for plaintiffs’ use and occupancy:

… “[I]t is well settled that the legal owner of real property is not entitled to an award for use and occupancy from a contract vendee in possession unless there also exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties” … . Under the merger doctrine, “execution of a contract of sale [for real property] between landlord and tenant serves to merge the landlord-tenant relationship into the vendor-vendee relationship and thus effectively terminates the former, unless the parties clearly intend the contrary result” … . “An intention to deviate from the general rule and to avoid a merger may be directly expressed in the agreement or may be inferred from a medley of factors such as the terms of the agreement, the circumstances of its making, and the subsequent behavior of the parties” … .

Here … the parties did not express an intention to deviate from the general rule or to avoid a merger upon the exercise of the purchase option. To the contrary, the terms of the rider provided, in relevant part, that “[i]n the event that Tenant decides not to exercise its option to purchase, all provisions herein remain in full force and effect and Tenant remains liable for all payments hereunder, including but not limited to rent” … . Since the plaintiffs validly exercised their option to purchase on July 21, 2015, and became a contract vendee in possession, it follows that the landlord-tenant relationship terminated on that date by application of the merger doctrine … . Blackburn Food Corp. v Ardi, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07850, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER AGREEMENT THE TENANT OWED THE LANDLORD AN ADDITIONAL $175,000; UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, THE PLAINTIFF SUED FOR THE CONTRACTUAL LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000; THE JUDGMENT FOR $175,000 WAS UPHELD; THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000 VIOLATED THE PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST NON-STATUTORY PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined the liquidated damages provision of the landlord-tenant surrender agreement violated the public policy against penalties or forfeitures for which there is no statutory penalty. Defendant-tenant, a grocery store chain, entered a surrender agreement with plaintiff-landlord which allowed defendant to get out from under the lease by making certain installment payments. Defendant defaulted on some of the payments (approximately $175,000) and plaintiff sought to recover liquidated damages of over $1,000,000. Defendant had timely surrendered the premises and it had been relet. Supreme Court had denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross-motion agreeing to pay $175,000:

Under our well-established rules of contract, the Surrender Agreement’s liquidated damages provision does not fairly compensate plaintiff for defendant’s delayed installment payments. The provision calls for a sum more than sevenfold the amount due if defendant had complied fully with the Surrender Agreement. We cannot enforce such an obviously and grossly disproportionate award without offending our State’s public policy against “the imposition of penalties or forfeitures for which there is no statutory authority” … . Accordingly, there was no error in rejecting plaintiff’s liquidated damages provision. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v D’Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06937, Ct App 11-24-20

 

,

THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE TENANT-ROBBERY-VICTIM’S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by a tenant stemming from a robbery by another tenant and others. Defendant landlord demonstrated it did not have notice of any prior similar criminal activity in the building:

A landlord is not required to insure the safety of tenants or visitors … . However, “[l]andlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . “To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” … . In the absence of evidentiary proof of notice of prior criminal activity, the owner’s duty reasonably to protect those using the premises from such activity never arises … . “The question of the scope of an alleged tort-feasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal issue for the court to resolve” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they lacked notice of the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject premises … . Markov v Grecian Gardens Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06771, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

THE STATE, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR HIRED TO DO RENOVATIONS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH INJURED CLAIMANT; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the defendant (New York State) was an out-of-possession landlord with respect to a public restroom at a state park. Plaintiff alleged a heavy trash receptacle fell from the wall. The Court of Claims had granted the state’s motion for summary judgment. But the Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the independent contractor hired by the state to renovate the restroom created the dangerous condition:

“While an out-of-possession landowner is generally not responsible for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landowner has retained control over the premises and is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct, liability may attach to an out-of-possession owner who has affirmatively created a dangerous condition or defect” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the claim as alleged negligence because it failed to submit evidence showing that the independent contractor that the defendant hired to renovate the subject restroom did not cause the alleged dangerous condition  … . Cintron v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06486, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

DEFENDANT LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL OUT OF A WINDOW; NO ALLEGATION OF THE VIOLATION OF ANY RULE, REGULATION, CODE OR STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner was not liable for plaintiff’s fall out of a window to the sidewalk below:

The record demonstrates that defendants may not be held liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff when, upon tripping over speaker wires, he fell out of his bedroom window and onto the sidewalk below. Defendants met their burden for summary judgment by submitting evidence that the window, neither by its configuration or condition, presented a hazard in and of itself, and that defendants had no statutory or common-law duty to install window guards or stops for the benefit of adult plaintiff …

Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment as it was not based on any rules, regulations, codes, standards or on the factual record … . Fraser v Reclaim Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05135, First Dept 9-29-20

 

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