157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. Hickson

New York Supreme Court

157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. Hickson

142 Misc. 2d 984, 542 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 376

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 142 Misc. 2d 984 (157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. Hickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. Hickson, 142 Misc. 2d 984, 542 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 376 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 3, 1988 affirmed, with $10 costs.

Tenant resides in an in rem building operated by petitioner [985]*985tenants association under the City of New York’s Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) program. The city is the owner of the building and supervises petitioner’s management during petitioner’s interim lease with the city. In this holdover proceeding, petitioner served a notice of termination specifying no reason for termination of the tenant’s month-to-month tenancy other than expiration of the term. Civil Court held that the notice was ineffective on due process grounds as a predicate for an eviction proceeding, and granted tenant’s application for dismissal.

We affirm. As a general rule, where the State (or city) " 'has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence’ with a [housing] program or project, the program or project 'cannot be considered to have been so "purely private” as to fall without the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’ ” (Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 NY2d 315, 318). While the TIL program is transitory in nature, the city oversees petitioner’s activities and operation, monitors its building management skills, sets initial rents and approves subsequent rent increases, and must approve the commencement of holdover proceedings. Thus, the city is so "entwined” with the conduct of the program as to constitute significant and meaningful governmental participation, triggering constitutional due process guarantees (see generally, Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 NY2d 152, 158). One of those guarantees is that a tenant is entitled to notice of the alleged cause for eviction and procedural due process in the determination of whether cause exists. "Eviction * * * requires a cause other than mere expiration of the lease” (Hudsonview Terrace v Maury, 100 Misc 2d 331, 332 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Since petitioner did not allege any cause for removal of the tenant, the petition was properly dismissed.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 3, 1988 affirmed, with $10 costs.

Tenant resides in an in rem building operated by petitioner [985]*985tenants association under the City of New York’s Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) program. The city is the owner of the building and supervises petitioner’s management during petitioner’s interim lease with the city. In this holdover proceeding, petitioner served a notice of termination specifying no reason for termination of the tenant’s month-to-month tenancy other than expiration of the term. Civil Court held that the notice was ineffective on due process grounds as a predicate for an eviction proceeding, and granted tenant’s application for dismissal.

We affirm. As a general rule, where the State (or city) " 'has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence’ with a [housing] program or project, the program or project 'cannot be considered to have been so "purely private” as to fall without the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’ ” (Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 NY2d 315, 318). While the TIL program is transitory in nature, the city oversees petitioner’s activities and operation, monitors its building management skills, sets initial rents and approves subsequent rent increases, and must approve the commencement of holdover proceedings. Thus, the city is so "entwined” with the conduct of the program as to constitute significant and meaningful governmental participation, triggering constitutional due process guarantees (see generally, Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 NY2d 152, 158). One of those guarantees is that a tenant is entitled to notice of the alleged cause for eviction and procedural due process in the determination of whether cause exists. "Eviction * * * requires a cause other than mere expiration of the lease” (Hudsonview Terrace v Maury, 100 Misc 2d 331, 332 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Since petitioner did not allege any cause for removal of the tenant, the petition was properly dismissed.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 2d 984, 542 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/157-west-123rd-st-tenants-assn-v-hickson-nysupct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack