545 Eighth Avenue Associates v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

545 Eighth Avenue Associates v. New York City Loft Board

232 A.D.2d 153, 647 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 153 (545 Eighth Avenue Associates v. New York City Loft Board) 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

545 Eighth Avenue Associates v. New York City Loft Board, 232 A.D.2d 153, 647 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 17, 1995, which confirmed the determination of respondent New York City Loft Board dated [154]*154August 3, 1994, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The applicable regulation, 29 RCNY 2-09 (b) (2), provides coverage for a residential occupant in possession of a covered residential unit, even if the occupant is not a prime tenant and even if the landlord did not consent to a sublet, assignment or subdivision, as long as the occupant was in possession prior to July 27, 1987. Petitioner conceded that the individual respondents are residential occupants, and does not dispute that they were in possession of covered residential units prior to the window date as defined in Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (4). There is no basis for petitioner’s insistence that applicable regulations make covered occupancy dependent on the landlord’s knowledge or consent (Kaufman v American Electrofax Corp., 102 AD2d 140, 142), or on a formal sublease or assignment.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 17, 1995, which confirmed the determination of respondent New York City Loft Board dated [154]*154August 3, 1994, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The applicable regulation, 29 RCNY 2-09 (b) (2), provides coverage for a residential occupant in possession of a covered residential unit, even if the occupant is not a prime tenant and even if the landlord did not consent to a sublet, assignment or subdivision, as long as the occupant was in possession prior to July 27, 1987. Petitioner conceded that the individual respondents are residential occupants, and does not dispute that they were in possession of covered residential units prior to the window date as defined in Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (4). There is no basis for petitioner’s insistence that applicable regulations make covered occupancy dependent on the landlord’s knowledge or consent (Kaufman v American Electrofax Corp., 102 AD2d 140, 142), or on a formal sublease or assignment.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 153, 647 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/545-eighth-avenue-associates-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack