498 W. End Ave. LLC v. Reynolds

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 2018
Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51943(U)
StatusPublished

This text of 498 W. End Ave. LLC v. Reynolds (498 W. End Ave. LLC v. Reynolds) 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
498 W. End Ave. LLC v. Reynolds, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion



498 West End Avenue LLC, -Appellant,

against

Jan Reynolds, Respondent-Tenant- Cross-Appellant, -and- Ariel Eliaz, "John Doe," and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.


Landlord appeals and tenant cross-appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), dated July 23, 2018, which granted in part and denied in part landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated July 23, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

While we do not subscribe in every respect to Civil Court's analysis, we nevertheless affirm the denial, in part, of landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession. The present record raises, but does not resolve, several mixed questions of law and fact, including whether the nature and frequency of the rent stabilized tenant's rental of space in her apartment on a short-term basis to transient individuals constituted commercialization of the premises and profiteering, which is an incurable violation (see Aurora Assoc. LLC v Hennen, 157 AD3d 608 [2018]; compare Goldstein v Lipetz, 150 AD3d 562 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1009 [2017] [landlord demonstrated "as a matter of law" that tenant sublet her apartment to 93 individuals for 338 days over an 18 month period, at nightly rates "far in excess of her stabilized rent"]).

With respect to the cross appeal, we note that "[s]ince the alleged conduct is incurable, no notice to cure is required" (Aurora Associates LLC v Hennen, 157 AD3d at 608-609). We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 28, 2018

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

Related

Trust for the Benefit of Goldstein v. Lipetz
2017 NY Slip Op 4070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 W. End Ave. LLC v. Reynolds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/498-w-end-ave-llc-v-reynolds-nyappterm-2018.