Linden v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

6 Citing cases

  1. Jemrock Realty v. Jay Krugman

    64 A.D.3d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 13 times

    To the contrary, the dissent's position is contradicted by the governing law. Matter of 425 3rd Ave. Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 29 AD3d 332 [2006]), Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assoc., v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 288 AD2d 89 [2001]), Matter of May fair York Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 240 AD2d 158 [1997]) and Matter of Linden v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 217 AD2d 407 [1995]) afford no support for the dissent's conclusion that landlord's evidence was insufficient to establish that it was entitled to a rent increase. Matter of 425 3rd Ave. Realty Co., Matter of May fair York Co. and Matter of Linden support the unremarkable proposition that maintenance and repair work do not qualify as "improvements"; Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assoc., held that the landlord had not performed certain work that it claimed it had, and that other work that was performed by the landlord was maintenance, not improvements.

  2. In re of 425 3rd Ave. Realty Co.

    29 A.D.3d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 17 times

    4[a]; Matter of Yorkroad Assoc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 19 AD3d 217). Invoices for painting, plastering and floor polishing, among other things, were correctly disallowed because they were for ordinary maintenance and repair, rather than for improvements ( see Matter of Mayfair York Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 240 AD2d 158). In any event, the tenant's written consent to the claimed improvements was never obtained ( see Matter of Linden v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 217 AD2d 407). The award of treble damages was appropriate because petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the numerous rent overcharges were not willful ( see Matter of Yorkroad Assoc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 19 AD3d 217).

  3. Littger v. Martin

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31268 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    These events do not provide a basis for the rental increase when plaintiff executed the subject lease. Defendant failed to establish that any work purportedly performed in plaintiff's apartment constituted improvements rather than ordinary repairs required by law (see Matter of Yorkroad Assoc., 19 AD3d at 218 [invoices for plastering, replacing window glass, refinishing a floor and painting had been correctly disallowed because they were not for improvements, but rather for repairs or normal maintenance]; Matter of Mayfair York Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 240 AD2d 158 (1st Dept. 1997); Matter of Linden v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 217 AD2d 407 (1st Dept. 1995). The Mayfair York decision distinguished between repairs, such as painting, partial floor replacement, and partial rewiring, and improvements that entitle a landlord to an IAI.

  4. Fuentes v. Kwik Realty LLC

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32195 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    " Matter of Linden v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 217 AD2d 407, 407 (1 st Dept 1995). Defendants cannot rely on the ruling in Jemrock Realty Co., LLC v Krugman (13 NY3d 924, 926 [2010]), that there is no "inflexible rule" requiring that the landlord always produce, or never produce, an itemized breakdown allocating between improvements and repairs—in all cases, it is a fact-specific inquiry, "to be resolved by the factfinder in the same manner as other issue, based on the persuasive force of the evidence. . ."

  5. Ernest v. Matas

    39 Misc. 3d 1206 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2013)   Cited 14 times

    Petitioner has also failed to establish that the work purportedly performed as listed on the invoice constituted improvements rather than ordinary repairs required by law. See In the Matter of Mayfair York Company v. N.Y. State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 240 A.D.2d 158, 658 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1st Dept.1997); and In the Matter of Linden v. N.Y. State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 217 A.D.2d 407, 629 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1st Dept.1995). In Mayfair York, the court distinguished between repairs, such as painting, partial floor replacement, and partial rewiring, and improvements that entitle a landlord to an IAI.

  6. Vaquez v. Sichel

    12 Misc. 3d 604 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    E W Realty Co. v Fettner, NYLJ, Aug. 22, 1997, at 21, col 2; Roker Realty Corp. v Gross, 163 Misc 2d at 767; see Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assoc, v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 288 AD2d 89 [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of BN Realty Assoc, v State of NY. Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 254 AD2d 7, 8 [1st Dept 1998]; Matter of Linden v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 217 AD2d 407 [1st Dept 1995]; Matter of Charles Birdoff Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630, 631 [2d Dept 1994].) Compliance with these criteria as well as 9 NYCRR 2522.4 (a) (6), as discussed above, and calculation of costs, rent, and any damages due to an overcharge are within the court's conventional expertise.