Matter of Grand Imperial, LLC v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Grand Imperial, LLC v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals

137 A.D.3d 579, 27 N.Y.S.3d 158

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2016

Docket545 100704/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 579 (Matter of Grand Imperial, LLC v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals) 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

Matter of Grand Imperial, LLC v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 137 A.D.3d 579, 27 N.Y.S.3d 158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, J.), entered April 22, 2015, granting the petition to annul a resolution of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals, adopted June 10, 2014, as amended July 2, 2014, which affirmed the Department of Buildings’ denial of petitioner’s request for a letter of no objection regarding petitioner’s rental of units in its class A residential building for a minimum of seven days, unanimously reversed, on the law, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed, without costs.

As Supreme Court found, based on the former Multiple Dwelling Law § 248 (16), which permitted single room occupancy owners to rent their rooms for periods as short as seven days, petitioner had an accrued right, within the meaning of the Multiple Dwelling Law saving clauses (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 366 [1]), at the time the legislature amended provisions related to occupancy in class A multiple dwellings in 2010. However, in enacting the amendments, the legislature’s intent that a 30-day minimum occupancy requirement would apply to all, with only narrow, specified exceptions, was sufficiently clear that petitioner’s saving clause right to continue renting for the shorter period was extinguished (see L 2010, ch 225, § 8, as amended by L 2010, ch 566, § 3 [providing in pertinent part that the relevant act amending the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York “shall take effect May 1, 2011 and shall apply to all buildings in existence on such effective date and to buildings constructed after such effective date” (emphasis added)]; Kellogg v Travis, 100 NY2d 407

[2003]). Concur—Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, J.), entered April 22, 2015, granting the petition to annul a resolution of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals, adopted June 10, 2014, as amended July 2, 2014, which affirmed the Department of Buildings’ denial of petitioner’s request for a letter of no objection regarding petitioner’s rental of units in its class A residential building for a minimum of seven days, unanimously reversed, on the law, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed, without costs.

As Supreme Court found, based on the former Multiple Dwelling Law § 248 (16), which permitted single room occupancy owners to rent their rooms for periods as short as seven days, petitioner had an accrued right, within the meaning of the Multiple Dwelling Law saving clauses (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 366 [1]), at the time the legislature amended provisions related to occupancy in class A multiple dwellings in 2010. However, in enacting the amendments, the legislature’s intent that a 30-day minimum occupancy requirement would apply to all, with only narrow, specified exceptions, was sufficiently clear that petitioner’s saving clause right to continue renting for the shorter period was extinguished (see L 2010, ch 225, § 8, as amended by L 2010, ch 566, § 3 [providing in pertinent part that the relevant act amending the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York “shall take effect May 1, 2011 and shall apply to all buildings in existence on such effective date and to buildings constructed after such effective date” (emphasis added)]; Kellogg v Travis, 100 NY2d 407

[2003]). Concur—Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 579, 27 N.Y.S.3d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-grand-imperial-llc-v-new-york-city-bd-of-stds-appeals-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack