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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 1, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] knowingly 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] knowingly 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.

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

280 A.D.2d 265 (S & M Enterprises v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related