Aguilar v. Rabin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguilar v. Rabin

128 Misc. 2d 428, 494 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2939

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 Misc. 2d 428 (Aguilar v. Rabin) 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

Aguilar v. Rabin, 128 Misc. 2d 428, 494 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered April 23, 1984 affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that the respondent, a subtenant residing in subdivided loft space, is not, upon the facts presented, a protected person under the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law, art 7-C, § 280 et seq.). The Loft Board rules upon which respondent relies, and which govern situations where the prime lessee of loft space seeks to recover a residential unit located therein, occupied by another {see, Rules and Regulations Relating to Subletting, Subdivision and Assignment § [C] [5] [c]), may not be invoked to continue a loft occupant’s subtenancy where, pursuant to the relevant zoning resolution and permissible “minor modifications” to that resolution, the square footage of the total floor area allows for only one residential unit. We [429]*429further agree that as between petitioner prime tenant and respondent subtenant, petitioner has the superior right to possession, particularly since only petitioner took any steps to legalize the space by filing applications with the appropriate city agencies.

Hughes, J. P., Riccobono and Parness, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered April 23, 1984 affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that the respondent, a subtenant residing in subdivided loft space, is not, upon the facts presented, a protected person under the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law, art 7-C, § 280 et seq.). The Loft Board rules upon which respondent relies, and which govern situations where the prime lessee of loft space seeks to recover a residential unit located therein, occupied by another {see, Rules and Regulations Relating to Subletting, Subdivision and Assignment § [C] [5] [c]), may not be invoked to continue a loft occupant’s subtenancy where, pursuant to the relevant zoning resolution and permissible “minor modifications” to that resolution, the square footage of the total floor area allows for only one residential unit. We [429]*429further agree that as between petitioner prime tenant and respondent subtenant, petitioner has the superior right to possession, particularly since only petitioner took any steps to legalize the space by filing applications with the appropriate city agencies.

Hughes, J. P., Riccobono and Parness, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Misc. 2d 428, 494 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilar-v-rabin-nyappterm-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack