Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Lexann Realty Co. v. Deitchman

Lexann Realty Co. v. Deitchman

83 A.D.2d 540, 441 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14827
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 30, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 540 (Lexann Realty Co. v. Deitchman) 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
Lexann Realty Co. v. Deitchman, 83 A.D.2d 540, 441 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinions

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, Appellate Term (Tierney, Riccobono, JJ.; Asch, J., dissenting), entered April 3, 1980, which affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court, New York City Housing Part (Sparks, J.), awarding petitioner-respondent landlord judgment of possession and a warrant to remove the respondent-appellant tenant from her rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan, reversed on the law and the petition dismissed, with costs. The tenant entered into a written lease for the. rent-stabilized apartment which term was extended and renewed to May 31,1982. The lease contained a sublet clause prohibiting subletting without the landlord’s consent in writing and providing that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. The tenant at first orally requested permission to sublet, which was refused. Then the tenant in writing, presumably pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 226-b of the Real Property Law, requested permission to sublet, giving the necessary details as to the prospective subtenant’s financial status and background. The landlord advised the tenant by written notice of the rejection of the proposed subtenant on the ground there were no references and no substantiation of income. The tenant replied in writing that substantiation would be supplied. The landlord never responded. The trial court, although finding that the landlord’s consent was unreasonably withheld, granted the judgment of eviction, concluding that the only remedy was for the tenant to be released from obligations under the lease. The Appellate Term affirmed, with a dissent by Judge Asch. As already foretold in the opinion by this court in Conrad v Third Sutton Realty Co. (81 AD2d 50), we agree with the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Term and interpret section 226-b to provide that if consent is unreasonably withheld, as here, the landlord is deemed to have granted consent. (See, also, 420 East Assoc. v Kerner, 81 AD2d 545.) Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan and Carro, JJ.

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

Related

Manhattan Embassy Co. v. Burns
185 Misc. 2d 692 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
ESPN, Inc. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
76 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Guerra v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission
501 A.2d 786 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1985)
Vance v. Century Apartments Associates
93 A.D.2d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Kreitman v. Einy
92 A.D.2d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Beck-Klein v. Solow Management Corp.
118 Misc. 2d 317 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Shapiro v. Dwelling Managers, Inc.
92 A.D.2d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Brefries East End, Inc. v. Platt
112 Misc. 2d 568 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1982)
Palmer v. 309 East 87th Street Co.
112 Misc. 2d 667 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A.D.2d 540, 441 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lexann-realty-co-v-deitchman-nyappdiv-1981.