Ariel Associates, L. L. C. v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ariel Associates, L. L. C. v. Brown

271 A.D.2d 369, 706 N.Y.S.2d 116, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedApril 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 369 (Ariel Associates, L. L. C. v. Brown) 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

Ariel Associates, L. L. C. v. Brown, 271 A.D.2d 369, 706 N.Y.S.2d 116, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Freedman, J. P., and Davis, J.), entered April 7, 1999, affirming orders of the Civil Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered September 7, 1997 and February 19, 1998, which dismissed the instant holdover proceeding and, upon reargument, adhered to such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that respondents should be evicted for profiteering was properly rejected on the ground that the summer subletting complained of did not rise to a level of profiteer[370]*370ing warranting termination of respondents’ 20-year tenancy without giving them an opportunity to cure (see, Alverjan Holding Corp. v Weiss, NYLJ, May 19,1994, at 27, col 4, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, 128 Misc 2d 680). Indeed, in response to a notice to cure that petitioner initially deemed necessary to serve but now claims was not, respondents promptly refunded all sums to the subtenants and notified petitioner of the cure prior to the commencement of holdover proceedings (see, Husda Realty Corp. v Padien, 136 Misc 2d 92, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Freedman, J. P., and Davis, J.), entered April 7, 1999, affirming orders of the Civil Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered September 7, 1997 and February 19, 1998, which dismissed the instant holdover proceeding and, upon reargument, adhered to such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that respondents should be evicted for profiteering was properly rejected on the ground that the summer subletting complained of did not rise to a level of profiteer[370]*370ing warranting termination of respondents’ 20-year tenancy without giving them an opportunity to cure (see, Alverjan Holding Corp. v Weiss, NYLJ, May 19,1994, at 27, col 4, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, 128 Misc 2d 680). Indeed, in response to a notice to cure that petitioner initially deemed necessary to serve but now claims was not, respondents promptly refunded all sums to the subtenants and notified petitioner of the cure prior to the commencement of holdover proceedings (see, Husda Realty Corp. v Padien, 136 Misc 2d 92, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 369, 706 N.Y.S.2d 116, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ariel-associates-l-l-c-v-brown-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack