From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferber v. Salon Moderne, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
Sep 15, 1997
174 Misc. 2d 945 (N.Y. App. Term 1997)

Summary

In Ferber v. Salon Moderne Inc., 174 Misc 2d 945, 668 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Sup. Ct., App. Term, 1997), a summary non-payment proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss the petition because petitioner's wife, rather than the petitioner, actually held title to the leased property.

Summary of this case from Gnatek v. Krasts-Voutyras

Opinion


174 Misc.2d 945 668 N.Y.S.2d 864 Norman FERBER, Appellant, v. SALON MODERNE, INC., Doing Business as Salon Moderne, Respondent. 1998-98,044 Supreme Court of New York, First Department Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, September 15, 1997.

[668 N.Y.S.2d 865]Lowenthal, Landau, Fischer & Bring, P.C., New York City (Charles S. Biener, of counsel), for appellant.

Jaffe, Segal & Ross, New York City (Steven R. Miller, of counsel), for respondent.

Before PARNES, J.P., and McCOOE and DAVIS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order dated July 9, 1996 (Donna M. Mills, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's cross-motion to dismiss the petition is denied, and the petition is reinstated.

Petitioner landlord leased commercial premises to tenant in his own name as "Owner". Landlord warranted that he was authorized to execute the lease, to grant the subject leasehold estate, and that he had indefeasible and marketable fee simple title. In fact, landlord's wife holds title, landlord having conveyed it to her in 1979 for "estate planning" purposes.

Upon tenant's default in payment of rent, petitioner commenced this nonpayment proceeding on a petition which alleges that he "... is the landlord of the premises ...". Civil Court granted tenant's dismissal motion on the basis that petitioner did not have good title and could not maintain the proceeding merely because a lease existed between himself and the tenant. We disagree. Where the tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent pursuant to the agreement under which the premises are held, a summary proceeding for possession may be brought by the "landlord or lessor" (RPAPL § 721, subd. 1; § 711, subd. 2). Questions of title or ownership are not litigated in summary proceedings (Mason v. Foxcroft Village, Inc., 67 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 413 N.Y.S.2d 255; Matter of Mahshie v. Dooley, 48 Misc.2d 1098, 1100, 266 N.Y.S.2d 661). We significantly note the fee owner's ratification of petitioner's authority to enter into leases, including the particular lease with tenant, and her waiver of any claim for rent due under the lease.

Tenant has not sought rescission of the lease and has remained in possession while withholding rent on the ground that landlord has failed to make promised renovations. The summary proceeding should go forward on the substantive issues raised by tenant--i.e., whether the obligation to pay rent has been suspended by landlord's alleged violation of the lease and constructive and/or partial eviction of the tenant. To the extent tenant is aggrieved by any misrepresentation of title in the lease, its remedy is in a plenary action.

PARNESS and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

McCOOE, Justice, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The Petitioner entered into a lease with the tenant which falsely described him as the owner of the subject premises. Subsequently he commenced this summary proceeding identifying himself as landlord in the petition, a term synonymous with owner. The tenant has established that the Petitioner is not the owner nor does he have any present legal relationship to the premises.

R.P.A.P.L. Sec. 721 enumerates the classes of person authorized to commence a summary proceeding. The Petitioner does not fit under any of those classes. Redhead v. Henry, 160 Misc.2d 546, 610 N.Y.S.2d 433. R.P.A.P.L. 741(1) requires a statement as to the interest of the petitioner in the property. The misstatement as to ownership requires dismissal. MSG Pomp Corp. v. Doe, 185 A.D.2d 798, 800, 586 N.Y.S.2d 965.

The Order should be affirmed.


Summaries of

Ferber v. Salon Moderne, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
Sep 15, 1997
174 Misc. 2d 945 (N.Y. App. Term 1997)

In Ferber v. Salon Moderne Inc., 174 Misc 2d 945, 668 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Sup. Ct., App. Term, 1997), a summary non-payment proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss the petition because petitioner's wife, rather than the petitioner, actually held title to the leased property.

Summary of this case from Gnatek v. Krasts-Voutyras
Case details for

Ferber v. Salon Moderne, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Ferber v. Salon Moderne, Inc.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

Date published: Sep 15, 1997

Citations

174 Misc. 2d 945 (N.Y. App. Term 1997)
668 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

Gnatek v. Krasts-Voutyras

In Ferber v. Salon Moderne Inc., 174 Misc 2d 945, 668 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Sup. Ct., App. Term, 1997), a summary…

Gnatek v. Krasts-Voutyras

626 Realty v. Gumbs, 2/27/92 N.Y.L.J. 27, col. 1 (App. Term 2d and 11th Jud. Dists.); Sollar v. Bloom, 91…