247 West 11th St. Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Houser

177 Misc. 2d 938, 678 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 449
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 11, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 Misc. 2d 938 (247 West 11th St. Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Houser) 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
247 West 11th St. Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Houser, 177 Misc. 2d 938, 678 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated February 7, 1997 reversed, with $10 costs, and tenant’s motion to dismiss the nonpayment petition is denied.

[939]*939Tenant in this nonpayment proceeding seeks to offset a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) rent overcharge award obtained against the predecessor owner. The present landlord acquired title in August 1993 after a judgment of foreclosure and judicial sale as assignee of the foreclosing mortgagee. The Rent Stabilization Code contains an exemption from carryover liability for rent overcharges where the current owner purchased at a judicial sale and “no records sufficient to establish the legal regulated rent” were provided at such sale (9 NYCRR 2526.1 [f] [2]). That exemption applies to successor purchasers such as landlord herein (Matter of Gaines v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 90 NY2d 545). Civil Court erred in concluding as a matter of law that landlord received records sufficient to establish the legal regulated rent or apprise it of the prior rent overcharge at the time it took title. The June 25, 1993 stipulation executed between the receiver in foreclosure and various tenants is not dispositive since the legal rent set forth for the tenant in annexed schedule C is $823.23, not $350 as determined in the DHCR order. Nor is there any record evidence of fraud or collusion by landlord with any prior owner. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted in tenant’s favor on the issue of the applicability of the Rent Stabilization Code exemption for successor owners.

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

Related

Fordham Fulton Realty Corp. v. De Leon
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
Cooke v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
179 Misc. 2d 418 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 Misc. 2d 938, 678 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/247-west-11th-st-realty-assocs-lp-v-houser-nyappterm-1998.