Landlord & Tenant

AppDiv, First Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In tenant's action for a declaration that landlord's notice of termination was void, tenant appealed from Supreme Court's judgment denying tenant's motion for injunctive relief and declaring that landlord was entitled to terminate the lease. The Appellate Division reversed, granted tenant's motion, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the court had prematurely disposed of tenant's claims.

Tenant leased the subject space in 1980, initially for a 10-year term, and operated a restaurant there. In 1981, the parties extended the lease for an additional 10 years, providing, however, that landowner would be entitled to terminate the lease 'in the event that landlord shall desire to demolish the premises in which this leasehold forms a part.' In that event, landlord would be obligated to pay tenant $300,000. In 1991, the parties again extended the lease, this time until 2010. The 1991 extension provided that landlord would have to pay $300,000 if landlord terminated before January 2000, but not afterwards.

On March 2, 2001, landlord served tenant with a notice of termination, stating that landlord had elected to terminate effective March 7, 2002 for the purpose of demolishing the building. The notice was signed by 'Mark Ziemba, agent.' On March 4, 2002, tenant brought this action for a declaration that the notice of termination was void because it was not authorized by the terms of the lease, not signed by landlord, and not supported by evidence that the building was to be demolished. After a hearing, the Supreme Court concluded that plans for redevelopment of the site were in their infancy, but denied tenant's motion for a stay of the running of the notice of termination, on the ground that landlord had a present intention to demolish the building. The court also signed a proposed order declaring that landlord was entitled to terminate the lease. Tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division started by noting that landlord had never moved for summary judgment, and holding that the Supreme Court had improvidently granted summary judgment before landlord had answered the complaint or submitted facts in opposition to tenant's motion. In addition, the court held that questions of fact remained about whether the notice of termination was sufficient on its face. Also, because tenant had established a probability of success and danger of irreparable injury, the Appellate Division held that tenant should have been granted injunctive staying the running of the notice of termination.

Roommate Law Inapplicable When Rooms Have Separate Locks

2328 Uniave Corp. v. Beheler

NYLJ 6/4/03, p. 19, col. 2

Civil Ct., Bronx Cty

(Malatzky, J.)

Landlord brought a holdover proceeding based on tenant's subletting of the premises without permission of the landlord. The court awarded landlord possession, holding that tenant had engaged in an illegal subletting of rooms even though tenant remained an occupant of the apartment.

Real Property Law section 235-f, known as the Roommate Law, provides that a residential lease shall be construed to permit occupancy by tenant, specified relatives, and one additional occupant. Tenant in this case installed interior locks on doors within the apartment, and rented out rooms behind those doors to other persons. Tenant no longer had access to the locked rooms. In response, landlord served a notice to cure and a notice of termination, indicating that tenant was in violation of the lease agreement by subletting the premises without landlord's consent. Landlord then brought this proceeding, and tenant invoked the Roommate Law as a defense.

In awarding possession to landlord, the court held that the Roommate Law contemplates a situation where tenant shares the entire premises with another occupant. In this case, the interior locks provided the alleged roommates with privacy inconsistent with the Roommate Law. Moreover, the court held that an arrangement between tenant and another occupant could constitute an illegal sublet even if tenant remained in occupancy of the premises. As a result, the court held that tenant had violated the terms of the lease, and awarded landlord a final judgment of possession.

2328 Uniave Corp. v. Beheler
NYLJ 6/4/03, p. 19, col. 2
Civil Ct., Bronx Cty
(Malatzky, J.)

Landlord brought a holdover proceeding based on tenant's subletting of the premises without permission of the landlord. The court awarded landlord possession, holding that tenant had engaged in an illegal subletting of rooms even though tenant remained an occupant of the apartment.

Real Property Law section 235-f, known as the Roommate Law, provides that a residential lease shall be construed to permit occupancy by tenant, specified relatives, and one additional occupant. Tenant in this case installed interior locks on doors within the apartment, and rented out rooms behind those doors to other persons. Tenant no longer had access to the locked rooms. In response, landlord served a notice to cure and a notice of termination, indicating that tenant was in violation of the lease agreement by subletting the premises without landlord's consent. Landlord then brought this proceeding, and tenant invoked the Roommate Law as a defense.

In awarding possession to landlord, the court held that the Roommate Law contemplates a situation where tenant shares the entire premises with another occupant. In this case, the interior locks provided the alleged roommates with privacy inconsistent with the Roommate Law. Moreover, the court held that an arrangement between tenant and another occupant could constitute an illegal sublet even if tenant remained in occupancy of the premises. As a result, the court held that tenant had violated the terms of the lease, and awarded landlord a final judgment of possession.

Termination for Planned Demolition Raises Questions of Fact

Oriburger, Inc. v. B.W.H.N.V. Associates

NYLJ 5/27/03, p. 18, col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In tenant's action for a declaration that landlord's notice of termination was void, tenant appealed from Supreme Court's judgment denying tenant's motion for injunctive relief and declaring that landlord was entitled to terminate the lease. The Appellate Division reversed, granted tenant's motion, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the court had prematurely disposed of tenant's claims.

Tenant leased the subject space in 1980, initially for a 10-year term, and operated a restaurant there. In 1981, the parties extended the lease for an additional 10 years, providing, however, that landowner would be entitled to terminate the lease 'in the event that landlord shall desire to demolish the premises in which this leasehold forms a part.' In that event, landlord would be obligated to pay tenant $300,000. In 1991, the parties again extended the lease, this time until 2010. The 1991 extension provided that landlord would have to pay $300,000 if landlord terminated before January 2000, but not afterwards.

On March 2, 2001, landlord served tenant with a notice of termination, stating that landlord had elected to terminate effective March 7, 2002 for the purpose of demolishing the building. The notice was signed by 'Mark Ziemba, agent.' On March 4, 2002, tenant brought this action for a declaration that the notice of termination was void because it was not authorized by the terms of the lease, not signed by landlord, and not supported by evidence that the building was to be demolished. After a hearing, the Supreme Court concluded that plans for redevelopment of the site were in their infancy, but denied tenant's motion for a stay of the running of the notice of termination, on the ground that landlord had a present intention to demolish the building. The court also signed a proposed order declaring that landlord was entitled to terminate the lease. Tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division started by noting that landlord had never moved for summary judgment, and holding that the Supreme Court had improvidently granted summary judgment before landlord had answered the complaint or submitted facts in opposition to tenant's motion. In addition, the court held that questions of fact remained about whether the notice of termination was sufficient on its face. Also, because tenant had established a probability of success and danger of irreparable injury, the Appellate Division held that tenant should have been granted injunctive staying the running of the notice of termination.

Roommate Law Inapplicable When Rooms Have Separate Locks

2328 Uniave Corp. v. Beheler

NYLJ 6/4/03, p. 19, col. 2

Civil Ct., Bronx Cty

(Malatzky, J.)

Landlord brought a holdover proceeding based on tenant's subletting of the premises without permission of the landlord. The court awarded landlord possession, holding that tenant had engaged in an illegal subletting of rooms even though tenant remained an occupant of the apartment.

Real Property Law section 235-f, known as the Roommate Law, provides that a residential lease shall be construed to permit occupancy by tenant, specified relatives, and one additional occupant. Tenant in this case installed interior locks on doors within the apartment, and rented out rooms behind those doors to other persons. Tenant no longer had access to the locked rooms. In response, landlord served a notice to cure and a notice of termination, indicating that tenant was in violation of the lease agreement by subletting the premises without landlord's consent. Landlord then brought this proceeding, and tenant invoked the Roommate Law as a defense.

In awarding possession to landlord, the court held that the Roommate Law contemplates a situation where tenant shares the entire premises with another occupant. In this case, the interior locks provided the alleged roommates with privacy inconsistent with the Roommate Law. Moreover, the court held that an arrangement between tenant and another occupant could constitute an illegal sublet even if tenant remained in occupancy of the premises. As a result, the court held that tenant had violated the terms of the lease, and awarded landlord a final judgment of possession.

2328 Uniave Corp. v. Beheler
NYLJ 6/4/03, p. 19, col. 2
Civil Ct., Bronx Cty
(Malatzky, J.)

Landlord brought a holdover proceeding based on tenant's subletting of the premises without permission of the landlord. The court awarded landlord possession, holding that tenant had engaged in an illegal subletting of rooms even though tenant remained an occupant of the apartment.

Real Property Law section 235-f, known as the Roommate Law, provides that a residential lease shall be construed to permit occupancy by tenant, specified relatives, and one additional occupant. Tenant in this case installed interior locks on doors within the apartment, and rented out rooms behind those doors to other persons. Tenant no longer had access to the locked rooms. In response, landlord served a notice to cure and a notice of termination, indicating that tenant was in violation of the lease agreement by subletting the premises without landlord's consent. Landlord then brought this proceeding, and tenant invoked the Roommate Law as a defense.

In awarding possession to landlord, the court held that the Roommate Law contemplates a situation where tenant shares the entire premises with another occupant. In this case, the interior locks provided the alleged roommates with privacy inconsistent with the Roommate Law. Moreover, the court held that an arrangement between tenant and another occupant could constitute an illegal sublet even if tenant remained in occupancy of the premises. As a result, the court held that tenant had violated the terms of the lease, and awarded landlord a final judgment of possession.