Opinion
Argued January 10, 1975
Decided February 25, 1975
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GUY G. RIBAUDO, J.
Joel J. Spector, Eugene J. Morris and Kenneth M. Block for appellant. Robert Sugarman and Jerome M. Kay for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The lease between the parties was in existence on May 12, 1969, the effective date of the Rent Stabilization Law, and provided, at its expiration on February 29, 1972, for an extension of the term on a month-to-month basis unless the appellant landlord made a $2,000 payment to the tenant in the event he vacated the premises upon a conditionally abbreviated notice. The case of Edward Tarr, Inc. v. Phoenix Pub. ( 1 A.D.2d 189, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 870) is not supportive of appellant landlord's demand for summary removal of the tenant. In that case and in settlement of a summary proceeding the landlord and tenants executed a stipulation by which it was agreed that the landlord be entitled to an order for the possession of the premises; that the landlord pay the tenants $1,500 immediately after their removal; and that general releases be executed by the parties. In other words, the tenants in Tarr, in exchange for a valuable consideration furnished by their landlord, entered into an agreement to vacate the premises. Such certainly was not the case in the instant proceeding because the lease simply permitted the landlord to exercise an option to terminate the tenancy upon certain conditions. If the landlord had done nothing when the term ended, and if the Rent Stabilization Law had not been enacted during the term of the lease, a month-to-month tenancy would have evolved.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.