Bozzi v. Goldblatt

160 A.D.2d 647, 559 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 26, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 647 (Bozzi v. Goldblatt) 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
Bozzi v. Goldblatt, 160 A.D.2d 647, 559 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered May 1, 1989, granting plaintiff’s motion to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding Barbara Goldblatt as a defendant and denying defendant Jacob Goldblatt’s motion to serve a supplemental and amended answer, to stay this action pending determination of certain issues before the Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and to direct plaintiff to deposit into court use and occupancy of $10,000 per month as well as arrears of $249,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Order of the same court, entered July 14, 1989, denying defendant’s motion for renewal and reargument unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sublet premises from defendant Jacob Goldblatt pursuant to a sublease agreement executed in 1975 and renewed through 1986. He claims defendants exacted rent overcharges from him in excess of the rent-stabilized or rent-controlled rent and seeks possession of the premises as the prime tenant.

The IAS court was correct in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add Barbara Goldblatt as a party defendant since, as a named tenant of the premises, she is a necessary party. (CPLR 1001.) The court also properly denied defendant Jacob Goldblatt’s motion to assert essentially frivolous counterclaims. As to his request for a stay of this action to allow removal to DHCR, where the agency’s expertise is not [648]*648necessary at this point, it was proper for the court to deny it with leave to renew in the event such expertise is required in the future. Finally, where the amount is in controversy and may be offset by rent overcharges alleged by plaintiff, he should not be required to deposit use and occupancy into court. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Westman Realty Co., LLC v. Nettles
2023 NY Slip Op 05346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Gardner v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
166 Misc. 2d 290 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
176 West 87th Street Equities v. Amador
151 Misc. 2d 234 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.D.2d 647, 559 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozzi-v-goldblatt-nyappdiv-1990.