From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3948.

Decided June 17, 2004.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered April 27, 2000, which granted defendant's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and entitled defendant to recover from plaintiff Hughes use and occupancy, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs and disbursements, in the total amount of $102,102.05, unanimously modified, on the law, to provide that plaintiff is liable only in his capacity as executor of the estate of Bettina Black, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Bureaux Rivard, Ithaca (Richard G. Tuttle of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Michael B. Wolk, P.C., New York (Michael B. Wolk of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


Inasmuch as the rent stabilization laws were enacted to "`prevent exactions of unjust, unreasonable and oppressive rents and rental agreements and to forestall profiteering, speculation and other disruptive practices,'" ( Matter of Avon Furniture Leasing, Inc. v. Popolizio, 116 A.D.2d 280, 283 [quoting New York City Administrative Code § YY51-1.0], lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 610), plaintiff was properly required to disgorge the profits he garnered from his purported sublease of the subject rent stabilized apartment during the period of his illegal holdover. Accordingly, defendant was properly awarded use and occupancy in the amount charged by defendant for the apartment pursuant to the rent stabilization laws plus any additional amounts received by plaintiff from the illegal subtenant. Also proper was the award of attorneys' fees to defendant in the stipulated amount of $60,000. Plaintiff, however, who succeeded to Bettina Black's leasehold interest in the apartment solely in his capacity as executor of her estate, is liable only in that representative capacity.

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp

Case Details

Full title:MARK HUGHES, as GUARDIAN OF MATTHEW BLACK AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

First Hudson Capital v. Seaborn

We agree, on this record, that the tenant's commercial exploitation of his stabilized apartment required…

1532-1609 Ocean Ave v. Hertzan

Similarly, here, because "the rent stabilization laws were enacted to prevent exactions of unjust,…