East 145 Co. v. Benayoun

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

East 145 Co. v. Benayoun

190 Misc. 2d 164, 736 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 915

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Misc. 2d 164 (East 145 Co. v. Benayoun) 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

East 145 Co. v. Benayoun, 190 Misc. 2d 164, 736 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

[165]*165OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Tenants concede that they harbored a dog in violation of the “no pets” lease provision and that this holdover proceeding was timely commenced under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2009.1. We discern no factual issue as to the remaining defense of retaliatory eviction which would preclude summary judgment on the petition. There is no allegation of any prior complaint made to governmental authorities concerning conditions within the apartment or any record evidence of building code violations (Real Property Law § 223-b). The mere settlement of a negligence lawsuit, commenced as a consequence of injuries sustained by tenants’ son when a fixture apparently fell in the apartment, is not, in and of itself, an adequate basis for a retaliatory eviction claim (see, Weil v Kaplan, 175 Misc 2d 482 [App Term, 2d Dept]). Similarly, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s denial of landlord’s permissible applications for high income rent decontrol is not evidence of retaliatory motive in this proceeding.

Issuance of the warrant is stayed for 10 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry so that tenants may cure the breach of lease (RPAPL 753 [4]).

The matter is remanded to the Civil Court for further proceedings on landlord’s claims for use and occupancy and attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party.

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

[165]*165OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Tenants concede that they harbored a dog in violation of the “no pets” lease provision and that this holdover proceeding was timely commenced under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2009.1. We discern no factual issue as to the remaining defense of retaliatory eviction which would preclude summary judgment on the petition. There is no allegation of any prior complaint made to governmental authorities concerning conditions within the apartment or any record evidence of building code violations (Real Property Law § 223-b). The mere settlement of a negligence lawsuit, commenced as a consequence of injuries sustained by tenants’ son when a fixture apparently fell in the apartment, is not, in and of itself, an adequate basis for a retaliatory eviction claim (see, Weil v Kaplan, 175 Misc 2d 482 [App Term, 2d Dept]). Similarly, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s denial of landlord’s permissible applications for high income rent decontrol is not evidence of retaliatory motive in this proceeding.

Issuance of the warrant is stayed for 10 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry so that tenants may cure the breach of lease (RPAPL 753 [4]).

The matter is remanded to the Civil Court for further proceedings on landlord’s claims for use and occupancy and attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Misc. 2d 164, 736 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-145-co-v-benayoun-nyappterm-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack