Housing Court Decision Summaries
Pultz v. Economakis
Feb. 15, 2007
Appellate Court:
Appellate Division, First Department
Trial Court:
Supreme Court, New York County
Trial Judge:
Hon. Faviola A. Soto
Type of Action or Proceeding:
Declaratory Judgment/Injunctive Relief
Issues/Legal Principles:
Owner does not require DHCR approval to seek possession of all rent stabilized units in a building for use by owner and/or owner's immediate family as their primary residence within the City of New York.
Source:
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 01381, Feb. 15, 2007
Referred Statutes:
Rent Stab. Code §§ 2524.2(c)(3); 2524.4(a); 2524.5; 2525.5(a)(1); Rent Stab Law §26-511; Real Property Tax Law §420-b(6); Municipal Home Rule Law §2(5)
Summary:
This case was an appeal of the Order of the Supreme Court New York County, granting the tenants summary judgment in their declaratory action that an owner's attempt to bring an owner's use (owner occupancy) case to recover all of the apartment units in a building was akin to withdrawal of the entire building from the rental market, which requires the prior approval of DHCR, and may be supported only where the owner required all or part of the housing accomodations or land in connection with a business, or that the cost of fixing substantial violations and conditions detrimental to health and safety would equal or exceed the assessed valutation of the property.
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed. The Court found that Rent Stabilization Code §2524.4 permits an owner to recover 'one of more dwelling units' and does not contain a cap, would be construed as permitting the owner to seek 'any and/or all' of the regulated units. Appellate Division rejected the tenants' argument, and Supreme Court's reasoning that an owner's pursuit of an entire building for personal use was contrary to the intent of rent stabilization, and left it to the Housing Court, and the paltry penalty provision of Rent Stabilization Code §2524.4(a)(5) (which 'may' deprive an owner of increases in the rent for three years in the event they do not continue in occupancy of the apartments obtained in an owner use case for three years), to protect tenants from landlords that lack bad faith and use owner occupancy proceedings as a means to deregulate apartments that they really intend to relet at market value.
In effect, this means that an owner may seek possession of an entire rent stabilized building for their own use and occupancy.
Notes:
The date that the Supreme Court decision summarized on this site appeard in the New York Law Journal was March 21, 2006.
Decision:
|
|
|
|
Search will only search cases from June 2002. For cases prior to that, please browse the 1996-2002 archives:
About HCD
NYC Housing Court
When you get legal papers, go here to see how Housing Court is supposed to work.
The Legal System
Some perspective might help in court.
Self Help: Nolo Press
Selected articles from Nolo Press
Other Sources
PrairieLaw House/Home Channel
|
