Mesiti v. Upam Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mesiti v. Upam Realty Corp.

185 A.D.2d 336, 586 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 336 (Mesiti v. Upam Realty Corp.) 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

Mesiti v. Upam Realty Corp., 185 A.D.2d 336, 586 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain leased premises are subject to rent control, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated August 10, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment declaring, inter alia, that the leased premises are not subject to rent control.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiff’s tenancy of certain store premises in Queens County was commercial and thus not subject to rent control. The lease, as well as a subsequent extension agreement entered into by the parties, unambiguously stated that the premises were to be used solely for commercial purposes. Assuming that the plaintiff resided in a portion of the premises, this did not mean that the plaintiff leased a "housing accommodation” subject to rent control (see generally, 129 E. 56th St. Corp. v Harrison, 122 Misc 2d 799).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain leased premises are subject to rent control, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated August 10, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment declaring, inter alia, that the leased premises are not subject to rent control.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiff’s tenancy of certain store premises in Queens County was commercial and thus not subject to rent control. The lease, as well as a subsequent extension agreement entered into by the parties, unambiguously stated that the premises were to be used solely for commercial purposes. Assuming that the plaintiff resided in a portion of the premises, this did not mean that the plaintiff leased a "housing accommodation” subject to rent control (see generally, 129 E. 56th St. Corp. v Harrison, 122 Misc 2d 799).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 336, 586 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mesiti-v-upam-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack