220 West 93rd St., LLC v. Stavrolakes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

220 West 93rd St., LLC v. Stavrolakes

33 A.D.3d 491, 823 N.Y.S.2d 44

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 491 (220 West 93rd St., LLC v. Stavrolakes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

220 West 93rd St., LLC v. Stavrolakes, 33 A.D.3d 491, 823 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 7, 2006, after a nonjury trial, declaring that defendant violated her obligations as a rent-controlled tenant and terminating her tenancy, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The judgment was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed (Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289 [2004]). Sufficient evidence, in the form of testimony and numerous exhibits, was presented for the court to find that the occupancy of this three-bedroom apartment (with dining room converted to a fourth bedroom) by numerous persons between 2001 and 2005—especially short-term transient students at illegal rents—was in the nature of subletting rather than taking in roommates, and constituted profiteering and commercialization of the premises, an incurable violation of the rent control laws (see BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kasher, 299 AD2d 87 [2002], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 535 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 7, 2006, after a nonjury trial, declaring that defendant violated her obligations as a rent-controlled tenant and terminating her tenancy, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The judgment was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed (Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289 [2004]). Sufficient evidence, in the form of testimony and numerous exhibits, was presented for the court to find that the occupancy of this three-bedroom apartment (with dining room converted to a fourth bedroom) by numerous persons between 2001 and 2005—especially short-term transient students at illegal rents—was in the nature of subletting rather than taking in roommates, and constituted profiteering and commercialization of the premises, an incurable violation of the rent control laws (see BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kasher, 299 AD2d 87 [2002], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 535 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 491, 823 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/220-west-93rd-st-llc-v-stavrolakes-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack