---

Posted by consigliere on January 17, 2002 at 15:57:16:

On Decembers 28, 2001, the Appellate Term, First Department affirmed the decision of a housing court judge which had held a landlord can proceed to evict a tenant who is "overcharging" a roommate under DHCR's December 2000 changes to the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC).

The appellate term didn't rule whether the provisions about overcharging a roommate in the revised RSC are valid or are contrary to law, or whether a tenant can be evicted for "overcharging" a roommate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

RAM 1 LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent

v.

Joan MAZZOLA, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant

and

Brian Maro, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated May 30, 2001 (Larry S. Schachner, J.) denying tenant's motion to dismiss landlord's holdover petition for failure to state a cause of action.

Present: Hon. STANLEY PARNESS, P.J., Hon. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, and Hon. LUCINDO SUAREZ, Justices.
PER CURIAM.

Order dated May 30, 2001 (Larry S. Schachner, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

The holdover petition alleges, inter alia, that the stabilized tenant violated section 2525.7(b) of the Rent Stabilization Code in that she charged her roommate a rental amount which exceeded the latter's "proportionate share"--to wit, the sum of $2,200 per month when the legal monthly rent for the entire premises is $1,847.77 per month. Giving landlord's allegations every favorable inference, they are sufficient to state the necessary elements for a possessory cause of action (RPAPL § 741[4]; see generally, Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970; CAE Industries Ltd. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 193 A.D.2d 470, 597 N.Y.S.2d 402), and tenant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal motion was properly denied. We do not reach other arguments raised by tenant for the first time on appeal (see, City of New York v. Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, 577 N.Y.S.2d 406).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Follow Ups:

• The New York Times Read It Here First On TenantNet consigliere 01/19/02 (5)
  • Re: The New York Times Read It Here First On TenantNet Lilly 01/23/02 (0)
  • Re: The New York Times Read It Here First On TenantNet Lilly 01/23/02 (0)
  • Re: The New York Times Read It Here First On TenantNet Lilly 01/19/02 (0)
  • well, duh! chelsea 01/19/02 (1)
    • Re: well, duh! Fred Lappert 01/19/02 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: On Decembers 28, 2001, the Appellate Term, First Department affirmed the decision of a housing court judge which had held a landlord can proceed to evict a tenant who is "overcharging" a roommate under DHCR's December 2000 changes to the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC).  

: The appellate term didn't rule whether the provisions about overcharging a roommate in the revised RSC are valid or are contrary to law, or whether a tenant can be evicted for "overcharging" a roommate.  

: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
:  
: RAM 1 LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent
:  
: v.
:  
: Joan MAZZOLA, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant
:  
: and
:  
: Brian Maro, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants
:  

: Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated May 30, 2001 (Larry S. Schachner, J.) denying tenant's motion to dismiss landlord's holdover petition for failure to state a cause of action.

: Present: Hon. STANLEY PARNESS, P.J., Hon. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, and Hon. LUCINDO SUAREZ, Justices.
: PER CURIAM.

: Order dated May 30, 2001 (Larry S. Schachner, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

: The holdover petition alleges, inter alia, that the stabilized tenant violated section 2525.7(b) of the Rent Stabilization Code in that she charged her roommate a rental amount which exceeded the latter's "proportionate share"--to wit, the sum of $2,200 per month when the legal monthly rent for the entire premises is $1,847.77 per month. Giving landlord's allegations every favorable inference, they are sufficient to state the necessary elements for a possessory cause of action (RPAPL § 741[4]; see generally, Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970; CAE Industries Ltd. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 193 A.D.2d 470, 597 N.Y.S.2d 402), and tenant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal motion was properly denied. We do not reach other arguments raised by tenant for the first time on appeal (see, City of New York v. Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, 577 N.Y.S.2d 406).

: This constitutes the decision and order of the court.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---