Hart-Zafra v. Singh

16 A.D.3d 143, 790 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 3, 2005·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] situation 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

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).

16 A.D.3d 143 (Hart-Zafra v. Singh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SG & Sons Realty LLC. v. Noman
2026 NY Slip Op 50087(U) (NYC Civil Court, Kings, 2026)
Trafalgar Co. v. Malone
73 Misc. 3d 137(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Mushlam, Inc. v. Nazor
80 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
58 East 130th Street LLC v. Mouton
25 Misc. 3d 509 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2009)