Paikoff v. Harris

No. L&T K068830/97 (N.Y., N.Y., Civ. Ct. Aug. 31, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52230

Description

Court Denies Landlord’s Petition to Evict Tenant and Tables Tenant’s Claim of Retaliatory Eviction for a Later Proceeding

Abstract

The court granted tenant’s motion to dismiss his landlord’s holdover eviction proceeding. Tenant’s lease had expired, but he and his wife rejected the terms and conditions of a new lease offered by landlord and held over. Subsequently tenant received a termination notice stating only that "the owner elects to terminate your month-to-month tenancy." The notice offered no explanation for terminating the tenancy. In its petition to the court, landlord argued that the apartment was not subject to rent control or rent stabilization and that tenant was not protected from eviction as a "nonpurchasing tenant" by the Martin Act, General Business Law § 352-eeee, because he moved into his apartment after the building became subject to an effective cooperative conversion plan. Tenant counteralleged that he was evicted in retaliation for complaining to a governmental body about health and safety violations. Each party sought dismissal of the other’s claims, and tenant moved for summary judgment. Noting that issues of fact that must await posttrial decision abounded, the court denied both landlord’s motion to dismiss the retaliatory eviction claim and tenant’s motion for summary judgment on that claim. Using the plain language of the statute, the court found that tenant was a "nonpurchasing tenant" protected under the Martin Act, which offers protection from unconscionable rental increases and from eviction proceedings based merely on expiration of tenancy. Thus tenant was entitled to continued occupancy so long as he was not in default of his obligations under the lease or tenancy. The court found that the notice of termination was therefore defective because it stated a "not-for-cause" termination based merely on expiration of a month-to-month tenancy and dismissed landlord’s eviction petition. The court did not reach the issue of whether landlord unconscionably increased tenant’s rent in violation of the Martin Act.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Respondent represented by Ronald S. Languedoc, Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B, 105 Court St., Brooklyn, NY 11201; 718.237.5500.
Docket Date
1998-08-31 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: