125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50258(U)

StatusPublished

This text of 125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin (125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

125-127 Allen Street Associates, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Song Quan Lin, Respondent-Tenant, and Xiu Jian Zheng, Yubi Jia, Yixiang Zheng, Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated October 26, 2018, which granted tenant's motion to vacate the warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about October 26, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly interpreted paragraph 4 of the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement as requiring undertenants, rather than tenant Song Quan Lin, to pay use and occupancy for the months of May, June and July. Tenant's obligations under the stipulation were clearly delineated by express language, i.e., "Lin to pay outstanding use and occupancy of $9,803.96," legal fees of $2,500 to be "paid by Lin," and "Lin shall return and reside in the apartment." However, paragraph 4 does not specify that the payments reflected therein were to be paid by Lin, and, in fact, makes reference to third-party payments inasmuch as undertenants, signatories to the stipulation, were in possession during the three months at issue. To the extent there was any ambiguity in paragraph 4, it was properly construed against landlord, since it drafted the stipulation (see 327 Realty, LLC v Nextel of NY, Inc., 150 AD3d 581, 582 [2017]).

In view of tenant's compliance with his obligations under the parties' stipulation, including the tender of $9,803.96 in use and occupancy, $2,500.00 in legal fees, and the resumption of occupancy of the subject apartment, we find no cause to disturb the court's determination to vacate the warrant of eviction.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 24, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

125-127 Allen Street Associates, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Song Quan Lin, Respondent-Tenant, and Xiu Jian Zheng, Yubi Jia, Yixiang Zheng, Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated October 26, 2018, which granted tenant's motion to vacate the warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about October 26, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly interpreted paragraph 4 of the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement as requiring undertenants, rather than tenant Song Quan Lin, to pay use and occupancy for the months of May, June and July. Tenant's obligations under the stipulation were clearly delineated by express language, i.e., "Lin to pay outstanding use and occupancy of $9,803.96," legal fees of $2,500 to be "paid by Lin," and "Lin shall return and reside in the apartment." However, paragraph 4 does not specify that the payments reflected therein were to be paid by Lin, and, in fact, makes reference to third-party payments inasmuch as undertenants, signatories to the stipulation, were in possession during the three months at issue. To the extent there was any ambiguity in paragraph 4, it was properly construed against landlord, since it drafted the stipulation (see 327 Realty, LLC v Nextel of NY, Inc., 150 AD3d 581, 582 [2017]).

In view of tenant's compliance with his obligations under the parties' stipulation, including the tender of $9,803.96 in use and occupancy, $2,500.00 in legal fees, and the resumption of occupancy of the subject apartment, we find no cause to disturb the court's determination to vacate the warrant of eviction.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 24, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v. Song Quan Lin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/125-127-allen-st-assoc-v-song-quan-lin-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack