Cooperatives & Condominiums

Civil Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Cohen, J.)

In landlord's holdover proceedings, tenants moved to dismiss, relying on the protection of the Martin Act, which regulates conversion of rental buildings to condominium and co-operative ownership. The court dismissed the holdover proceedings, holding that the Martin Act protects tenants who are tenants in occupancy on the date the Attorney General accepts a plan for filing, even if the Attorney General has not yet declared the plan effective.

Landlord brought 23 holdover proceedings against a variety of tenants in a building landlord is seeking to convert to condominium ownership. All tenants agreed to be bound by the court's decision with respect to Penhurst, because the issues are identical. Penhurst's apartment, like the apartments of the other tenants, is not rent regulated. Tenant's most recent lease expired on February 28, 2006, and landlord has not accepted rent since that date. Landlord brought holdover proceedings against Penhurst and the other tenants in March 2006. In June 2005, landlord had submitted an offering plan to the Attorney General for filing, and the Attorney General accepted the plan for filing on June 22, 2006, several months after the expiration of tenant Penhurst's lease. Tenants moved to dismiss, citing the Martin Act, which bars landlords from evicting 'non-purchasing tenants' based on expiration of their tenancy. The statute defines non-purchasing tenant as 'a tenant entitled to possession at the time the plan is declared effective.' General Business Law, sec. 352-eeee[1][e]. Because the offering plan has not yet been declared effective, landlord argued that holdover tenants were not non-purchasing tenants within the ambit of the statute, and were not therefore protected from eviction at expiration of their leases.

In rejecting landlord's argument, the court indicated that it would not be bound by the statute's language when legislative intent indicates that a literal reading would frustrate the statutory purpose. Here, the court concluded that the statute intended to protect tenants who were in actual possession at the time the offering plan is accepted for filing. The court then concluded that the tenant in this case was protected, even though its lease had expired before the plan was accepted for filing, because no warrant of eviction had yet been issued. As a result, tenant remained a tenant-in-occupancy, and was entitled to protection under the Martin Act.

Martin Act Protects Unregulated Tenants

321 West 57^th Street Owner LLC v. Penhurst Productions Inc.

NYLJ 3/27/07, p. 22, col. 1

Civil Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Cohen, J.)

In landlord's holdover proceedings, tenants moved to dismiss, relying on the protection of the Martin Act, which regulates conversion of rental buildings to condominium and co-operative ownership. The court dismissed the holdover proceedings, holding that the Martin Act protects tenants who are tenants in occupancy on the date the Attorney General accepts a plan for filing, even if the Attorney General has not yet declared the plan effective.

Landlord brought 23 holdover proceedings against a variety of tenants in a building landlord is seeking to convert to condominium ownership. All tenants agreed to be bound by the court's decision with respect to Penhurst, because the issues are identical. Penhurst's apartment, like the apartments of the other tenants, is not rent regulated. Tenant's most recent lease expired on February 28, 2006, and landlord has not accepted rent since that date. Landlord brought holdover proceedings against Penhurst and the other tenants in March 2006. In June 2005, landlord had submitted an offering plan to the Attorney General for filing, and the Attorney General accepted the plan for filing on June 22, 2006, several months after the expiration of tenant Penhurst's lease. Tenants moved to dismiss, citing the Martin Act, which bars landlords from evicting 'non-purchasing tenants' based on expiration of their tenancy. The statute defines non-purchasing tenant as 'a tenant entitled to possession at the time the plan is declared effective.' General Business Law, sec. 352-eeee[1][e]. Because the offering plan has not yet been declared effective, landlord argued that holdover tenants were not non-purchasing tenants within the ambit of the statute, and were not therefore protected from eviction at expiration of their leases.

In rejecting landlord's argument, the court indicated that it would not be bound by the statute's language when legislative intent indicates that a literal reading would frustrate the statutory purpose. Here, the court concluded that the statute intended to protect tenants who were in actual possession at the time the offering plan is accepted for filing. The court then concluded that the tenant in this case was protected, even though its lease had expired before the plan was accepted for filing, because no warrant of eviction had yet been issued. As a result, tenant remained a tenant-in-occupancy, and was entitled to protection under the Martin Act.