From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jee–Yung ("Amy") Yang v. Krem Realty, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 22, 2017
148 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-22-2017

JEE–YUNG ("Amy") YANG, respondent, v. KREM REALTY, INC., appellant.

Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, P.C., New York, NY (Seth Denenberg and Jacqueline Handel–Harbour of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey McAdams, New York, NY, for respondent.


Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, P.C., New York, NY (Seth Denenberg and Jacqueline Handel–Harbour of counsel), for appellant.

Jeffrey McAdams, New York, NY, for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for rent overcharges, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated October 7, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff tenant commenced this action in 2010 to recover damages for rent overcharges since the beginning of her tenancy in May 2007. She alleged, inter alia, that the defendant landlord had improperly imposed a $175 increase on the monthly rent on the basis of individual apartment improvements (hereinafter IAIs) (see 9 NYCRR 2522.4 [a][1]; Matter of Rockaway One Co., LLC v. Wiggins, 35 A.D.3d 36, 40, 822 N.Y.S.2d 103 ) that it claimed to have made to her apartment before the commencement of her tenancy. In 2015, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, and the defendant appeals.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it was entitled to an increase in the rent based on IAIs it made to the plaintiff's apartment. The defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it made the claimed IAIs or, if so, their cost. Inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Giantomaso v. T. Weiss Realty Corp., 142 A.D.3d 950, 951, 37 N.Y.S.3d 313 ), its motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in opposition (see Pitt v. Mroz, 146 A.D.3d 913, 914, 45 N.Y.S.3d 206 ).

MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jee–Yung ("Amy") Yang v. Krem Realty, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 22, 2017
148 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Jee–Yung ("Amy") Yang v. Krem Realty, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JEE–YUNG ("Amy") YANG, respondent, v. KREM REALTY, INC., appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 22, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 2024
48 N.Y.S.3d 625