From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marbru Associates v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 1989
148 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 30, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew R. Tyler, J.).


Issues of fact exist on this record as to whether defendant's occupancy is residential, commercial, or both. The lease itself reflects a commercial usage. The record contains no evidence that defendant resided on the premises. The usage of the leased premises has not been proven, and questions of fact therefore exist as to whether the premises fall within the protection of the Rent Stabilization Law and whether defendant is entitled to a renewal lease. (Golfinos v. 400 Coop. Corp., 110 A.D.2d 522; Matter of Zeitlin v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 46 N.Y.2d 992.) We remand for a determination of these issues.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Marbru Associates v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 1989
148 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Marbru Associates v. Kaplan

Case Details

Full title:MARBRU ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. DONALD KAPLAN, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 30, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Grogan v. Laura Shapiro Kramer Assoc.

the Civil Court. Tenant's submissions below established that the lease agreement contained standard…

Artykova v. Avramenko

The majority's decision to reject these submissions in favor of tenant's unsubstantiated allegations, without…