Alp Realty Corp. v. Huttick

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Alp Realty Corp. v. Huttick

160 Misc. 2d 76, 612 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 161

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 160 Misc. 2d 76 (Alp Realty Corp. v. Huttick) 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

Alp Realty Corp. v. Huttick, 160 Misc. 2d 76, 612 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[77]*77OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered December 23, 1991 affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this residential nonpayment proceeding, we agree that the counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability interposed by the pro se tenant, although inartfully drafted, was sufficiently pleaded and that no substantial right of landlord was prejudiced (CPLR 3026; see generally, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3026.01).

Turning to landlord’s remaining contention, we have previously held that breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted as an affirmative claim to obtain a refund for rent already paid and in an amount in excess of the unpaid rent for which the landlord seeks recovery (N Town Roosevelt Assocs. v Muller, NYLJ, Oct. 27, 1980, at 6, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]; Stahl v AM & PM Prods., NYLJ, Mar. 1, 1979, at 7, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept]; 350 Assocs. v Feldman, NYLJ, Dec. 18, 1978, at 13, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept]; see generally, 3 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 43:41, at 148 [3d ed]).

Ostrau, P. J., Miller and Glen, JJ., concur.

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

[77]*77OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered December 23, 1991 affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this residential nonpayment proceeding, we agree that the counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability interposed by the pro se tenant, although inartfully drafted, was sufficiently pleaded and that no substantial right of landlord was prejudiced (CPLR 3026; see generally, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3026.01).

Turning to landlord’s remaining contention, we have previously held that breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted as an affirmative claim to obtain a refund for rent already paid and in an amount in excess of the unpaid rent for which the landlord seeks recovery (N Town Roosevelt Assocs. v Muller, NYLJ, Oct. 27, 1980, at 6, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]; Stahl v AM & PM Prods., NYLJ, Mar. 1, 1979, at 7, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept]; 350 Assocs. v Feldman, NYLJ, Dec. 18, 1978, at 13, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept]; see generally, 3 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 43:41, at 148 [3d ed]).

Ostrau, P. J., Miller and Glen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 Misc. 2d 76, 612 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alp-realty-corp-v-huttick-nyappterm-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack