Kibel v. Appel

Civil Court of the City of New York

Kibel v. Appel

147 Misc. 2d 141, 555 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 223

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedApril 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 Misc. 2d 141 (Kibel v. Appel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kibel v. Appel, 147 Misc. 2d 141, 555 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 223 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Louis B. York, J.

This amended decision cures several errors made in the previous decision dated March 27,1990.

This is a motion for summary judgment in a holdover proceeding seeking the eviction of a husband and wife for violating a substantial obligation of their lease. The tenant claims that this proceeding is flawed because prior to the bringing of this action and after the service of the 30-day notice the landlord furnished the tenant with a renewal lease [142]*142on a form prescribed by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.5 (b).

By furnishing the renewal lease, the tenant argues the termination notice is voided and the tenant occupies the premises under the renewal lease. That renewal lease was furnished in accordance with the procedure mandated by Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.5 (b).

I disagree. The Rent Stabilization Code at section 2523.5 requires the landlord to offer a renewal lease. While section 2524.4 lists several exceptions to this rule, violation of a substantial obligation is not one of them. The cases cited by respondent are, therefore, inapposite because none of them involved the compulsion of furnishing a renewal lease under the Rent Stabilization Code. (See, Mobil Oil Corp. v Lione, 66 Misc 2d 599 [Dist Ct, Suffolk County 1971]; Atkinson v Trehan, 70 Misc 2d 614 [Civ Ct, NY County 1972]; Kennedy v Deignan, 90 Misc 2d 238 [Dist Ct, Nassau County 1977].)

The fact that the petitioner landlord was required by regulatory authority to send the renewal lease is not construed as vitiating the notice of termination when the act of renewing the lease was not one of free will but of adhering to the requirements of law. (Cf., Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 40 NY2d 955 [1976].)

Motion denied.

Trial scheduled for May 7, 1990 at 9:30 a.m. in Trial Term Part 18.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Louis B. York, J.

This amended decision cures several errors made in the previous decision dated March 27,1990.

This is a motion for summary judgment in a holdover proceeding seeking the eviction of a husband and wife for violating a substantial obligation of their lease. The tenant claims that this proceeding is flawed because prior to the bringing of this action and after the service of the 30-day notice the landlord furnished the tenant with a renewal lease [142]*142on a form prescribed by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.5 (b).

By furnishing the renewal lease, the tenant argues the termination notice is voided and the tenant occupies the premises under the renewal lease. That renewal lease was furnished in accordance with the procedure mandated by Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.5 (b).

I disagree. The Rent Stabilization Code at section 2523.5 requires the landlord to offer a renewal lease. While section 2524.4 lists several exceptions to this rule, violation of a substantial obligation is not one of them. The cases cited by respondent are, therefore, inapposite because none of them involved the compulsion of furnishing a renewal lease under the Rent Stabilization Code. (See, Mobil Oil Corp. v Lione, 66 Misc 2d 599 [Dist Ct, Suffolk County 1971]; Atkinson v Trehan, 70 Misc 2d 614 [Civ Ct, NY County 1972]; Kennedy v Deignan, 90 Misc 2d 238 [Dist Ct, Nassau County 1977].)

The fact that the petitioner landlord was required by regulatory authority to send the renewal lease is not construed as vitiating the notice of termination when the act of renewing the lease was not one of free will but of adhering to the requirements of law. (Cf., Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 40 NY2d 955 [1976].)

Motion denied.

Trial scheduled for May 7, 1990 at 9:30 a.m. in Trial Term Part 18.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 Misc. 2d 141, 555 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1990 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kibel-v-appel-nycivct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack