From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blum v. Graceton Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1996
228 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 13, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).


The motion court properly dismissed the complaint since the stipulation of settlement, dated November 1, 1988, wherein plaintiffs became rent-stabilized tenants of the subject premises, is insufficient to support their claim to a continuing right to the apartment at a rent-stabilized rate. The right to continued renewal leases under the Rent Stabilization Law is not absolute, and coverage may be terminated for various non-fault grounds ( Mayflower Assoc. v. Gray, NYLJ, Mar. 1, 1994, at 21, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]), including, as here, high income rent deregulation pursuant to the Rent Regulation Reformation Act of 1993 (McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 8625-a [Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4) § 5-a, as added by L 1993, ch 253, § 9]). Nor were plaintiffs entitled to a life estate in the subject apartment, rather than merely the right to occupy the premises as rent-stabilized tenants. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for reformation, upon a showing of mutual mistake, with respect to the unambiguous stipulation of settlement ( Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 29, lv denied, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 1005). The language of the stipulation establishes that plaintiffs received exactly what they had bargained for, a rent-stabilized tenancy, subject to all the rights and obligations attendant to any other rent-stabilized tenancy within the City of New York.

Plaintiffs' challenge to the rent charged for the subject apartment was properly rejected since in their stipulation of settlement plaintiffs acknowledged the propriety of the rental amount and specifically waived their right to object to the registered rent or to file any overcharge claims for the subject apartment ( 437 Palisade Ave. Realty Corp. v. Boyd, 118 Misc.2d 577, 584, affd 124 Misc.2d 759).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Blum v. Graceton Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1996
228 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Blum v. Graceton Estates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TIBBY BLUM et al., Appellants, v. GRACETON ESTATES, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 13, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 35

Citing Cases

Draper v. Georgia Props

In light of the fact that the Lease and Rider are unenforceable pursuant to the provisions of the RSC, and…

New York University v. Eckstein

The stipulation was expressly made subject to tenant's "obligations" under the Code and referenced the…