Landlord & Tenant

Rent-Stabilized Tenant Entitled to Remain After Foreclosure

Combined Ventures, LLC v. Fiske House Apt. Corp.

NYLJ 6/28/10, p. 34, col. 5

AppDiv., Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In mortgagee's foreclosure action, non-party tenant appealed from a Supreme Court order denying her motion to stay enforcement of a notice of eviction. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a rent-stabilized tenant is entitled to remain in premises after a foreclosure proceeding.

Current owner purchased the subject building after foreclosure, and moved for a writ of assistance to place it in possession of the entire building. Supreme Court granted the motion, and directed eviction of every person in possession of the premises. Tenant then received a five-day notice of eviction, which she moved to vacate. Supreme Court denied the motion, and tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division noted that tenant had enjoyed the possession of the rent stabilization laws, and that those laws bar eviction of any protected tenant as long as the tenant pays the rent. Here, tenant sought to tender rent, but purchaser had instructed her to hold on to the money. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that she should be treated as if she had paid the rent, and she should therefore be entitled to remain in the apartment.

Rent-Stabilized Tenant Entitled to Remain After Foreclosure

Combined Ventures, LLC v. Fiske House Apt. Corp.

NYLJ 6/28/10, p. 34, col. 5

AppDiv., Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In mortgagee's foreclosure action, non-party tenant appealed from a Supreme Court order denying her motion to stay enforcement of a notice of eviction. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a rent-stabilized tenant is entitled to remain in premises after a foreclosure proceeding.

Current owner purchased the subject building after foreclosure, and moved for a writ of assistance to place it in possession of the entire building. Supreme Court granted the motion, and directed eviction of every person in possession of the premises. Tenant then received a five-day notice of eviction, which she moved to vacate. Supreme Court denied the motion, and tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division noted that tenant had enjoyed the possession of the rent stabilization laws, and that those laws bar eviction of any protected tenant as long as the tenant pays the rent. Here, tenant sought to tender rent, but purchaser had instructed her to hold on to the money. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that she should be treated as if she had paid the rent, and she should therefore be entitled to remain in the apartment.