Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can an Owner Recover an Entire Building for Personal Use?
New York City's rent stabilization law has long permitted a building's owner to recover possession of an apartment when the owner seeks to use the apartment as a primary residence for himself or members of his immediate family. Suppose, however, an owner seeks to convert an entire apartment building to single-family use. May the owner refuse to renew the leases of multiple rent-stabilized tenants? In a decision certain to be appealed, a Manhattan Supreme Court justice has held that the answer is no ' unless the landlord seeks and obtains approval from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
The Pultz Case
In Pultz v. Economakis (NYLJ 3/21/06, p. 19, col. 3), the landlords owned a 5-story, 15-unit tenement on East Third Street in Manhattan. They recovered five of the units, and then served notices of non-renewal on the remaining tenants, alleging that they planned to devote the entire building to their personal use as a private residence. The tenants responded by bringing an action for a judgment declaring that the landlords' plan to recover the entire building for personal use violates the Rent Stabilization Law and Code. Last June, a Supreme Court justice granted tenants a preliminary injunction. Pultz v. Economakis, 8 Misc2d 1022A. In the most recent development in the case, another Supreme Court justice denied landlords' summary judgment motion, holding that landlords' attempt to recover possession of the entire building was governed by section 2524.5 of the Rent Stabilization Code, which requires approval of DHCR before a landlord withdraws units from the rental market, rather than section 2524.4, which enumerates grounds for refusal to renew leases without order of the DHCR.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?