Khaner v. Gavin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Khaner v. Gavin

30 Misc. 3d 1

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Misc. 3d 1 (Khaner v. Gavin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Khaner v. Gavin, 30 Misc. 3d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered on or about March 7, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We reject tenant’s contention that a prior holdover proceeding commenced by one of the other owners of the premises to recover the subject apartment for that other owner’s personal use constitutes a bar to this proceeding (see Michel v Chumbley, NYLJ, Mar. 17, 1986, at 14, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Moreover, the dismissal of an owner-occupancy holdover summary proceeding on the merits does not preclude a subsequent proceeding where, as here, there has been a change in circumstances (see Monacelli v Farrington, NYLJ, Apr. 10, 1996, at 25, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept], affd 240 AD2d 296 [1997]). We note that tenant does not contest Civil Court’s factual finding that landlord Kucera intended in good faith to recover the apartment for personal use as his primary residence.

Schoenfeld, J.P, Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered on or about March 7, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We reject tenant’s contention that a prior holdover proceeding commenced by one of the other owners of the premises to recover the subject apartment for that other owner’s personal use constitutes a bar to this proceeding (see Michel v Chumbley, NYLJ, Mar. 17, 1986, at 14, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Moreover, the dismissal of an owner-occupancy holdover summary proceeding on the merits does not preclude a subsequent proceeding where, as here, there has been a change in circumstances (see Monacelli v Farrington, NYLJ, Apr. 10, 1996, at 25, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept], affd 240 AD2d 296 [1997]). We note that tenant does not contest Civil Court’s factual finding that landlord Kucera intended in good faith to recover the apartment for personal use as his primary residence.

Schoenfeld, J.P, Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 3d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khaner-v-gavin-nyappterm-2010.