Rose Associates v. Johnson

247 A.D.2d 222, 668 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 920
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 222 (Rose Associates v. Johnson) 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
Rose Associates v. Johnson, 247 A.D.2d 222, 668 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 4, 1997, inter alia, awarding plaintiff landlord a money judgment representing arrears of interim use and occupancy, and immediate possession of the subject apartment as against defendant tenant and the remaining defendants claiming through her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Interim use and occupancy was properly awarded in an amount higher than the rent stated in the tenant’s lease, and without consideration of the merits of the landlord’s claim that the tenant was a holdover by reason of nonprimary residence, because, by order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, the apartment had become deregulated upon expiration of the lease. Pending the immediately scheduled hearing before the Special Referee, at which the tenant failed to ap[223]*223pear, and in the absence of countervailing proof from the tenant, the amount of interim use and occupancy was properly based on the affidavit of one of plaintiffs principals, who, while interested, clearly had knowledge of the building and of the rental value of its apartments. The tenant’s failure to pay the interim use and occupancy was a violation of a condition to her right to remain in the apartment, “permitting defendant [landlord] to apply for appropriate relief, e.g., a money judgment, or eviction, or both” (Hodo v Serrecchia, 102 AD2d 807). We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

S.J.C. 308 Lenox Ave. Family L.P. v. Hendrix House Harlem LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 50099(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
East Dr. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Lawrence
2024 NY Slip Op 30470(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Port Morris Distillery, Inc. v. Global Estate LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 00152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Marbru Assoc. v. White
2022 NY Slip Op 04123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Heywood Condominium Ex Rel. Board of Managers v. Wozencraft
2017 NY Slip Op 257 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Getty Properties Corp. v. Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc.
106 A.D.3d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Penkovsky
100 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ansonia Associates v. Bozza
186 Misc. 2d 845 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 222, 668 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-associates-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1998.