S & M Enterprises v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S & M Enterprises v. Lee

280 A.D.2d 265, 719 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 265 (S & M Enterprises v. Lee) 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

S & M Enterprises v. Lee, 280 A.D.2d 265, 719 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 28, 2000, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff landlord’s motion for summary judgment upon its claim for withheld rent and use and occupancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of factual issues as to whether plaintiff landlord [266]*266knowingly countenanced defendants’ residential occupancy in its building, and as to whether, during the period of defendants’ residential occupancy in plaintiffs building, the building was a “multiple dwelling,” within the meaning of Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 (7), for which no certificate of occupancy had been obtained, summary judgment upon plaintiffs claim for withheld rent and use and occupancy was properly denied (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 301 [1]; § 302 [1] [a], [b]; 99 Commercial St. v Llewellyn, 240 AD2d 481, 483, lv denied, 90 NY2d 809). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 28, 2000, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff landlord’s motion for summary judgment upon its claim for withheld rent and use and occupancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of factual issues as to whether plaintiff landlord [266]*266knowingly countenanced defendants’ residential occupancy in its building, and as to whether, during the period of defendants’ residential occupancy in plaintiffs building, the building was a “multiple dwelling,” within the meaning of Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 (7), for which no certificate of occupancy had been obtained, summary judgment upon plaintiffs claim for withheld rent and use and occupancy was properly denied (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 301 [1]; § 302 [1] [a], [b]; 99 Commercial St. v Llewellyn, 240 AD2d 481, 483, lv denied, 90 NY2d 809). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 265, 719 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-m-enterprises-v-lee-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack