Hart-Zafra v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hart-Zafra v. Singh

16 A.D.3d 143, 790 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 143 (Hart-Zafra v. Singh) 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

Hart-Zafra v. Singh, 16 A.D.3d 143, 790 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J), entered June 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff owner’s motion for summary judgment upon his second cause of action seeking an award of use and occupancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The circumstance that plaintiff owner, during the period in question, permitted defendants to reside in the subject basement apartment without obtaining a proper certificate of occupancy for the unit precludes his recovery of use and occupancy (see Jalinos v Ramkalup, 255 AD2d 293 [1998]). This is not a [144]*144situation in which the owner was prevented by the occupants from bringing the unit into compliance (cf. First Edition Composite v Wilkson, 177 AD2d 297 [1991]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J), entered June 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff owner’s motion for summary judgment upon his second cause of action seeking an award of use and occupancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The circumstance that plaintiff owner, during the period in question, permitted defendants to reside in the subject basement apartment without obtaining a proper certificate of occupancy for the unit precludes his recovery of use and occupancy (see Jalinos v Ramkalup, 255 AD2d 293 [1998]). This is not a [144]*144situation in which the owner was prevented by the occupants from bringing the unit into compliance (cf. First Edition Composite v Wilkson, 177 AD2d 297 [1991]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 143, 790 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-zafra-v-singh-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack