Summary
In Mesiti v. Upam Realty Corp., 185 AD2d 336 (2d Dep't. 1992), a tenant with a commercial lease argued that the premises were subject to rent control.
Summary of this case from Bravo v. MarteOpinion
July 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the court's determination that the plaintiff's tenancy of certain store premises in Queens County was commercial and thus not subject to rent control. The lease, as well as a subsequent extension agreement entered into by the parties, unambiguously stated that the premises were to be used solely for commercial purposes. Assuming that the plaintiff resided in a portion of the premises, this did not mean that the plaintiff leased a "housing accommodation" subject to rent control (see generally, 129 E. 56th St. Corp. v. Harrison, 122 Misc.2d 799).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.