Kaminsky v. Mautner-Glick Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaminsky v. Mautner-Glick Corp.

298 A.D.2d 104, 747 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9208

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 104 (Kaminsky v. Mautner-Glick Corp.) 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

Kaminsky v. Mautner-Glick Corp., 298 A.D.2d 104, 747 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2001, [105]*105which, in an action by plaintiff tenants against defendant landlords to recover interest on a fair market rent appeal award, and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action, dismissed the complaint upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 28, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the landlords’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In a fair market rent appeal, the tenants were awarded a refund of excess rent in a November 1998 PAR order that slightly modified a 1992 Rent Administrator order. Since the tenants had vacated the apartment, the PAR order gave the landlords 60 days to pay the award, failing which the tenants could bring a court action to enforce the award. Subsequent to the PAR order, there were no communications between the parties until August 2000, when the tenants’ attorney contacted the landlords and demanded payment of the award, as well as statutory interest at least from the 1992 Rent Administrator’s order if not from the time that the landlords first began collecting excess rent. The landlords paid the award but rejected the demand for interest, whereupon the tenants commenced the instant action. Since the tenants were not compelled to commence an action to enforce the award, they are not entitled to attorneys’ fees or interest, and the action was properly dismissed (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [d], [g]; § 2522.3; Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333). Nor are the landlords entitled to attorneys’ fees under a lease that allows them such only for actions they bring against the tenants because of a lease default or brought against them because of the tenants’ actions. Concur — Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2001, [105]*105which, in an action by plaintiff tenants against defendant landlords to recover interest on a fair market rent appeal award, and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action, dismissed the complaint upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 28, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the landlords’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In a fair market rent appeal, the tenants were awarded a refund of excess rent in a November 1998 PAR order that slightly modified a 1992 Rent Administrator order. Since the tenants had vacated the apartment, the PAR order gave the landlords 60 days to pay the award, failing which the tenants could bring a court action to enforce the award. Subsequent to the PAR order, there were no communications between the parties until August 2000, when the tenants’ attorney contacted the landlords and demanded payment of the award, as well as statutory interest at least from the 1992 Rent Administrator’s order if not from the time that the landlords first began collecting excess rent. The landlords paid the award but rejected the demand for interest, whereupon the tenants commenced the instant action. Since the tenants were not compelled to commence an action to enforce the award, they are not entitled to attorneys’ fees or interest, and the action was properly dismissed (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [d], [g]; § 2522.3; Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333). Nor are the landlords entitled to attorneys’ fees under a lease that allows them such only for actions they bring against the tenants because of a lease default or brought against them because of the tenants’ actions. Concur — Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 104, 747 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminsky-v-mautner-glick-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack