235 West 71 Street LLC v. Chechak

4 Misc. 3d 114, 782 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 21, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Misc. 3d 114 (235 West 71 Street LLC v. Chechak) 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
235 West 71 Street LLC v. Chechak, 4 Misc. 3d 114, 782 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated July 11, 2003 affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court correctly granted tenant’s motion for summary judgment, since there was no material issue that the occupancy of his mother, Elinore Chechak, rose to the level of an unlawful “assignment,” as opposed to a permissible presence by an immediate family member. Elinore Chechak has long-term ties to the apartment, having commenced occupancy as the tenant of record in 1982 together with her (then) minor son Eric. In 1999, the Chechaks requested that the tenancy continue in Eric’s name, but Elinore continued to maintain her possessions in the premises and reside there at least intermittently. It appears that landlord’s principal complaint at this juncture is that Eric has allegedly relocated to Michigan. In analogous cases involving occupancies by family members with historical contacts to an apartment, it has been determined that the appropriate remedy is a nonprimary residence proceeding commenced upon the requisite statutory notice (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.2 [c] [3]), as opposed to a summary termination of the tenancy based upon a purported assignment or sublet between parent and child (see, Park Holding Co. v Rosen, 241 AD2d 304 [1997]; PLWJ Realty v Gonzalez, 285 AD2d 370 [2001]). A departure from the apartment during the lease term by Eric Chechak and the reentry by Elinore Chechak is not properly characterized as a violation of section 226-b of the Real Property Law (see, 61 Jane St. Assoc. v Kroll, 102 AD2d 751, 753 [1984]). Nor does landlord, in its notice of termination, point to a violation of any lease provision.

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

Related

888 E. 96th St., LLC v. Hargrove
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
Georgetown Leasing L.L.C. v. Oakley
19 Misc. 3d 988 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Misc. 3d 114, 782 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/235-west-71-street-llc-v-chechak-nyappterm-2004.