408 East 10th Street Tenants' Ass'n v. Nespral

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

408 East 10th Street Tenants' Ass'n v. Nespral

123 A.D.3d 503, 999 N.Y.S.2d 30

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

Docket13753 108910/10

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 503 (408 East 10th Street Tenants' Ass'n v. Nespral) 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

408 East 10th Street Tenants' Ass'n v. Nespral, 123 A.D.3d 503, 999 N.Y.S.2d 30 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered September 17, 2013, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, declared null and void, ab initio, a lease entered into by defendant Charo Nespral for an apartment in a building owned by the City of New York, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring the lease effective, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted plaintiff tenant association’s motion for summary judgment. Because the subject building is owned by the City of New York, the New York City Department of Housing Freservation and Development’s prior *504 written approval was required for plaintiff to enter into the subject lease with defendant. As plaintiff concedes, written approval was never obtained. Thus, the lease is “invalid and unenforceable” (Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 147 [1984]; see 28 RCNY § 34-04 [b]). The motion court properly declined to estop plaintiff from asserting the invalidity of the lease (see Advanced Refractory Tech. v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 81 NY2d 670, 677-678 [1993]; Taylor v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 73 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Acosta and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered September 17, 2013, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, declared null and void, ab initio, a lease entered into by defendant Charo Nespral for an apartment in a building owned by the City of New York, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring the lease effective, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted plaintiff tenant association’s motion for summary judgment. Because the subject building is owned by the City of New York, the New York City Department of Housing Freservation and Development’s prior *504 written approval was required for plaintiff to enter into the subject lease with defendant. As plaintiff concedes, written approval was never obtained. Thus, the lease is “invalid and unenforceable” (Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 147 [1984]; see 28 RCNY § 34-04 [b]). The motion court properly declined to estop plaintiff from asserting the invalidity of the lease (see Advanced Refractory Tech. v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 81 NY2d 670, 677-678 [1993]; Taylor v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 73 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Acosta and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 503, 999 N.Y.S.2d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/408-east-10th-street-tenants-assn-v-nespral-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack