Home/New York Court of Appeals/David v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

David v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

450 N.E.2d 229, 59 N.Y.2d 714, 463 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3080
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 450 N.E.2d 229 (David v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board, 450 N.E.2d 229, 59 N.Y.2d 714, 463 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3080 (N.Y. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the petition dismissed and the order of the Conciliation and Appeals Board reinstated.

The garage rental term to which the tenant objects is the same term that was included in the original lease. Since the landlord is only obligated to offer renewal “on the same conditions as the expiring lease” (Code of Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., § 60), the landlord’s inclusion in the lease of the garage clause presents no violation of the law.

The fact that the tenant preliminarily had the opportunity of renting or not renting the garage space and thus of including or not including the garage rental term in the original lease is irrelevant. The statute focuses on the [716]*716terms actually in the lease and not those terms or options discussed or rejected during the initial negotiations.

Although the broad purpose of the Rent Stabilization Law is to protect the interests of tenants, the means adopted is stabilization or “freezing” of the terms of existing rental agreements. This affords a measure of protection to both parties by permitting the tenant to renew the lease on its original terms, with limited statutory adjustments, while protecting the landlord against the loss of the contractual rights for which it originally bargained. Under such a scheme, a tenant seeking the benefits of the statute may not pick and choose only those conditions which he or she continues to find convenient or advantageous.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, petition dismissed and order of the board reinstated in a memorandum.

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

Related

Cadillac Leasing L.P. v. Demoyano
2025 NY Slip Op 50410(U) (NYC Civil Court, Queens, 2025)
Sambr, LLC v. Brown
2 Misc. 3d 62 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
123 West 15, LLC v. Compton
1 Misc. 3d 608 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2003)
Davis v. Cole
193 Misc. 2d 380 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
ATM One, L. L. C. v. Allicino
190 Misc. 2d 181 (Nassau County District Court, 2001)
Spaeda v. Bakirtjy
186 Misc. 2d 557 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2000)
East Eleventh Street Associates v. Breslow
174 Misc. 2d 994 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Dworkin v. 417 East Realty Associates
116 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Century Operating Corp. v. Popolizio
458 N.E.2d 805 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
450 N.E.2d 229, 59 N.Y.2d 714, 463 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-new-york-city-conciliation-appeals-board-ny-1983.