Kent v. Bedford Apartments Co.

237 A.D.2d 140, 654 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 140 (Kent v. Bedford Apartments Co.) 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
Kent v. Bedford Apartments Co., 237 A.D.2d 140, 654 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 14, 1996, which, in an action to recover rent overcharges, granted defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

After defendants commenced a holdover proceeding against plaintiff, the roommate of the recently deceased tenant of record of the subject apartment, the parties entered into a court-ordered stipulation under which plaintiff, who expressly represented that her primary residence was outside New York City, was given a rent-stabilized lease to the apartment and waived any right to challenge the rent charged by defendants. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.13 prohibits the waiver, under any and all circumstances, of a tenant’s rights under the Rent Stabilization Law, plaintiff had not yet been established as a rent-stabilized tenant at the time she entered into the stipulation, and thus cannot rely on that provision. Plaintiff had a choice of either obtaining a judicial declaration of her status under the rent laws or entering into a stipulation that, much to her advantage, conferred that status. As indicated, we perceive no public policy or other reason for disregarding that choice, made with advice of counsel (see, Mitchell v New York Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC
42 N.Y.3d 415 (New York Court of Appeals, 2024)
Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC
180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Meyers v. Four Thirty Realty, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 4883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
SAP V/ATLAS 845 WEA Associates NF LLC v. Jannelli
30 Misc. 3d 75 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
546 West 156th Street HDFC v. Smalls
43 A.D.3d 7 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Jazilek v. Abart Holdings LLC
41 A.D.3d 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Drucker v. Mauro
30 A.D.3d 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Merwest Realty Corp. v. Prager
264 A.D.2d 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Merwest Realty Corp. v. Prager
177 Misc. 2d 956 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
East Eleventh Street Associates v. Breslow
174 Misc. 2d 994 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 A.D.2d 140, 654 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-bedford-apartments-co-nyappdiv-1997.