Payne v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Payne v. King

296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7668

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 362 (Payne v. King) 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

Payne v. King, 296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and partial judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2001, which declared that plaintiff was [363]*363a holdover tenant and granted possession to defendant, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and also to amend his answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on the history of use of the subject premises and in particular of the plaintiffs rental of the ground floor and parlor floor, and the condition of the premises during the tenancy, this space was not a single room occupancy within the meaning of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and the premises are not subject to rent stabilization.

Motion seeking stay granted only to the extent of staying eviction for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry on condition plaintiff continues to pay all use and occupancy, as directed by an order of a Justice of this Court dated April 12, 2002, and otherwise denied. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order and partial judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2001, which declared that plaintiff was [363]*363a holdover tenant and granted possession to defendant, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and also to amend his answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on the history of use of the subject premises and in particular of the plaintiffs rental of the ground floor and parlor floor, and the condition of the premises during the tenancy, this space was not a single room occupancy within the meaning of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and the premises are not subject to rent stabilization.

Motion seeking stay granted only to the extent of staying eviction for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry on condition plaintiff continues to pay all use and occupancy, as directed by an order of a Justice of this Court dated April 12, 2002, and otherwise denied. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-king-nyappdiv-2002.