Chelsea Dynasty v. Shomron

Landlord/Tenant Law

New York Law Journal


Judge Michelle D. Schreiber

Landlord moved for leave to conduct discovery in this holdover action. Respondent cross-moved to renew and reargue denial of his summary judgment motion. Landlord claimed respondent was a month-to-month tenant without a lease, and the premises were not subject to rent regulation as the "rooms…are connected," thus the combined monthly rent was over $2,000, after a vacancy. Respondent alleged the premises were subject to rent stabilization, and he occupied the premises since 1972. The court granted renewal and reargument, noting it previously overlooked facts based on additional documents not previously available. Landlord focused not on respondent's long-term residency, but on the fact the rooms were combined and if tenant had prior owner's permission. The court found that focus irrelevant to the rent-regulatory status of a premises. It also noted as the apartment was never registered and the legal rent never established, the landlord could not show the legal regulated rent ever rose above $2,000. As landlord failed to show either a vacancy or legal rent over $2,000, it could not meet its burden on the claim the premises was exempt from rent stabilization, and summary judgment was granted.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202583720087

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.