406 W. 48th LLC v. Vaituzis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

406 W. 48th LLC v. Vaituzis

74 A.D.3d 549, 902 N.Y.S.2d 351

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

DecidedJune 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 549 (406 W. 48th LLC v. Vaituzis) 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

406 W. 48th LLC v. Vaituzis, 74 A.D.3d 549, 902 N.Y.S.2d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 27, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to litigating the claims and defenses in Civil Court, Housing Part, and denied plaintiff landlord’s motion to compel the tenant to comply with discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The tenant in this ejectment action was entitled to notice of the grounds on which termination of the tenancy was sought (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3; Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117 [2003]). This rent-stabilized [550]*550tenant was not served with the requisite notice, warranting dismissal of the action.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, De-Grasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32768(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 27, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to litigating the claims and defenses in Civil Court, Housing Part, and denied plaintiff landlord’s motion to compel the tenant to comply with discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The tenant in this ejectment action was entitled to notice of the grounds on which termination of the tenancy was sought (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3; Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117 [2003]). This rent-stabilized [550]*550tenant was not served with the requisite notice, warranting dismissal of the action.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, De-Grasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32768(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 549, 902 N.Y.S.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/406-w-48th-llc-v-vaituzis-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack