Damasco v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Damasco v. Berger

5 A.D.3d 176, 772 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2327

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 176 (Damasco v. Berger) 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

Damasco v. Berger, 5 A.D.3d 176, 772 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about July 24, 2003, affirming an order of Civil Court, New York County (Maria Milin, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2001, which had dismissed the petition in this holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[177]*177Petitioner landlord was precluded from refusing to renew respondent tenant’s lease during an initial abbreviated term contemplated under governing New York City Loft Board Regulations (29 RCNY) § 2-01 (m) (3) (ii), which abbreviated term followed the Loft Board’s order setting the initial legal regulated rent. The owner failed to establish that the tenant received the benefit of a full, rent-stabilized term, as required by the Rent Stabilization Code, where the owner served the tenant with notice of nonrenewal during an initial term that was due to expire less than five months after commencement. Insofar as the New York County Civil Court decisions in Kaplan v Raab (NYLJ, Dec. 6, 2000, at 25, col 2) and Breyre v Halo (n.o.r., Index No. L&T 100437/00, Mar. 12, 2001) hold to the contrary, the Civil Court correctly declined to follow them.

We have considered petitioner’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit, including his assertion that section 2-01 (m) (3) (ii) is ultra vires and unenforceable due to the Loft Board’s lack of jurisdiction to regulate a unit that has already entered the rent-stabilized system. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about July 24, 2003, affirming an order of Civil Court, New York County (Maria Milin, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2001, which had dismissed the petition in this holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[177]*177Petitioner landlord was precluded from refusing to renew respondent tenant’s lease during an initial abbreviated term contemplated under governing New York City Loft Board Regulations (29 RCNY) § 2-01 (m) (3) (ii), which abbreviated term followed the Loft Board’s order setting the initial legal regulated rent. The owner failed to establish that the tenant received the benefit of a full, rent-stabilized term, as required by the Rent Stabilization Code, where the owner served the tenant with notice of nonrenewal during an initial term that was due to expire less than five months after commencement. Insofar as the New York County Civil Court decisions in Kaplan v Raab (NYLJ, Dec. 6, 2000, at 25, col 2) and Breyre v Halo (n.o.r., Index No. L&T 100437/00, Mar. 12, 2001) hold to the contrary, the Civil Court correctly declined to follow them.

We have considered petitioner’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit, including his assertion that section 2-01 (m) (3) (ii) is ultra vires and unenforceable due to the Loft Board’s lack of jurisdiction to regulate a unit that has already entered the rent-stabilized system. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 176, 772 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damasco-v-berger-nyappdiv-2004.