Frebar Development Corp. v. Posner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frebar Development Corp. v. Posner

121 A.D.3d 627, 994 N.Y.S.2d 308

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2014

Docket13377 103525/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 627 (Frebar Development Corp. v. Posner) 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

Frebar Development Corp. v. Posner, 121 A.D.3d 627, 994 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J), entered August 7, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to confirm the special referee’s report and recommendation, and denied plaintiff landlord’s motion to reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The special referee did not exceed her authority in holding a second hearing since the issue of what rent was due, including late fees, was not previously determined. Accordingly, it was proper for the special referee to hold a second hearing to determine actual damages in accordance with the court’s decision (see Steingart v Hoffman, 80 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2011]).

Plaintiff landlord’s claim for nonpayment of rent from defendant tenant who never took possession of the apartment was properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to establish that the multiple dwelling at issue was registered with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 325 [2]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2097 [b]; Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 NY2d 719 [1987]; 151 Daniel Low, LLC v Gassab, 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50637[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2014]). The dismissal was appropriately made without prejudice (see 9 Montague Terrace Assoc. v Feuerer, 191 Misc 2d 18 [App Term, 2d Dept 2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J), entered August 7, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to confirm the special referee’s report and recommendation, and denied plaintiff landlord’s motion to reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The special referee did not exceed her authority in holding a second hearing since the issue of what rent was due, including late fees, was not previously determined. Accordingly, it was proper for the special referee to hold a second hearing to determine actual damages in accordance with the court’s decision (see Steingart v Hoffman, 80 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2011]).

Plaintiff landlord’s claim for nonpayment of rent from defendant tenant who never took possession of the apartment was properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to establish that the multiple dwelling at issue was registered with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 325 [2]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2097 [b]; Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 NY2d 719 [1987]; 151 Daniel Low, LLC v Gassab, 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50637[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2014]). The dismissal was appropriately made without prejudice (see 9 Montague Terrace Assoc. v Feuerer, 191 Misc 2d 18 [App Term, 2d Dept 2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 627, 994 N.Y.S.2d 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frebar-development-corp-v-posner-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack