Central Park W. Realty v. Stocker

8 Citing cases

  1. Goldstein v. Lipetz

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4070 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    In Ariel Assoc., LLC v Brown (271 AD2d 369 [1st Dept 2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 844 [2000]), as revealed by the record and appellate briefs, the apartment was sublet for only approximately one month during each of three summers, spread over four years. Similarly inapposite is the Appellate Term case of Central Park W. Realty v Stocker (1 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50058[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]), in which the unlawful sublet lasted only one month. Defendant also argues that her profiteering was "insubstantial" because her Airbnb income did not exceed her legal regulated rent plus 10% during several months of the subletting.

  2. Goldstein v. Lipetz

    150 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 17 times

    . Similarly inapposite is the Appellate Term case of Central Park W. Realty v. Stocker, 1 Misc.3d 137(A), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50058(U), 2004 WL 314623 (App.Term., 1st Dept.2004), in which the unlawful sublet lasted only one month. Defendant also argues that her profiteering was "insubstantial" because her Airbnb income did not exceed her legal regulated rent plus 10% during several months of the subletting.

  3. 72A Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Mercado

    46 Misc. 3d 59 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)   Cited 2 times

    We briefly address two ancillary issues. The court's dismissal of tenant's counterclaim for attorney's fees incurred in defense of a prior holdover proceeding commenced by landlord should have been "with prejudice," where landlord was awarded a possessory judgment on its earlier holdover petition, albeit a judgment which was permanently stayed (see Central Park W. Realty, LLC v. Stocker, 1 Misc.3d 137[A], 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50058[U], 2004 WL 314623 [App.Term, 1st Dept.2004] ). Finally, landlord's unopposed motion for issuance of a rent deposit order should have been granted, where more than 30 days have elapsed since the parties' first court appearance herein and, so far as known, no adjournments were requested by landlord (see RPAPL 745[2] [a] ).

  4. 72a Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Mercado

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24397 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

    We briefly address two ancillary issues. The court's dismissal of tenant's counterclaim for attorney's fees incurred in defense of a prior holdover proceeding commenced by landlord should have been "with prejudice," where landlord was awarded a possessory judgment on its earlier holdover petition, albeit a judgment which was permanently stayed (see Central Park W. Realty LLC v Stocker, 1 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50058[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2004]). Finally, landlord's unopposed motion for issuance of a rent deposit order should have been granted, where more than 30 days have elapsed since the parties' first court appearance herein and, so far as known, no adjournments were requested by landlord (see RPAPL 745[2][a]).

  5. 72a Realty Assocs., L.P. v. Mercado

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24302 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

    We briefly address two ancillary issues. The court's dismissal of tenant's counterclaim for attorney's fees incurred in defense of a prior holdover proceeding commenced by landlord should have been "with prejudice," where landlord was awarded a possessory judgment on its earlier holdover petition, albeit a judgment which was permanently stayed (see Central Park W. Realty LLC v Stocker, 1 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50058[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2004]). Finally, landlord's unopposed motion for issuance of a rent deposit order should have been granted, where more than 30 days have elapsed since the parties' first court appearance herein and, so far as known, no adjournments were requested by landlord (see RPAPL 745[2][a]).

  6. Cambridge Dev. v. Staysna

    68 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    In Cambridge Dev., LLC v Staysna (68 AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2009]), the overcharging of the sole subtenant ceased "before the first month of the sublease had ended" (id. at 615).

    Although tenant sublet his rent-stabilized apartment to a subtenant for a substantial percentage above the legal rent, the tenancy was to be of short duration and upon learning of the illegality of the rent being charged, tenant promptly cured any violation of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) ยง 2525.6 (b) by immediately agreeing with the subtenant to offset his future rent and utility payments at the legal rate against the full amount of his initial overpayment. This arrangement was reached before the first month of the sublease had ended, and thus the duration of the illegal overcharging by tenant was brief, the offset resulted in a full refund of the overpayment, and landlord was aware of tenant's cure before the commencement of the holdover proceeding ( see e.g. Ariel Assoc. v Brown, 271 AD2d 369, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 844; Central Park W. Realty v Stocker, 1 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50058[U]; Husda Realty Corp. v Padien, 136 Misc 2d 92 [Civ Ct, NY County 1987]). [Prior Case History: 22 Misc 3d 59.]

  7. Cambridge Dev. v. Staysna

    22 Misc. 3d 59 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Applying the rent credits agreed to by the tenant and subtenant, a relatively insubstantial overcharge ultimately was collected, one never pursued by the subtenant. While we do not condone the tenant's initial lapse in judgment, the ultimate penalty of eviction is neither required nor appropriate on this fact pattern ( see Ariel Assoc., v Brown, 271 AD2d 369, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 844; Central Park W. Realty v Stocker, 1 Misc 3d 137[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50058[U]; Chelsea Nineteen Assoc., v Smith, NYLJ, Mar. 22, 2000, at 26, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000]). McKEON, P.J. (dissenting in part).

  8. 42nd & 10th Assocs. LLC v. Ikezi

    9 N.Y.S.3d 593 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2015)

    Term 1st Dept.2010), 643 Realty LLC v. Thadal, 15 Misc.3d 131A (App. Term 2nd Dept.2007), Central Park W. Realty v. Stocker, 1 Misc.3d 137A (App. Term 1st Dept.2004), 145 Ave. C LLC v. Kelly, 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3980 (Civ.Ct. N.Y. Co.2006), Husda Realty Corp. v. Padien, 136 Misc.2d 92, 94 (Civ.Ct. N.Y. Co.1987) (Tom, J.) (profiteering on a sublet undermines rent regulation and is therefore incurable). As Respondent's infraction is incurable, Petitioner was not required to serve Respondent a notice to cure.