Posted by consigliere on January 19, 2002 at 02:28:39:
In Reply to: RAM 1 LLC v. Mazzola -- Overcharging A Roommate? posted by consigliere on January 17, 2002 at 15:57:16:
The item below appeared in Metro Briefing in the January 18, 2002 online edition of The New York Times.
Apparently Times writer Hope Reeves reads TenantNet, because the decision was handed down in late December 2001, but it wasn't reported by The Times until after I posted the full text of the decision on TenantNet the day before.
"MANHATTAN: RULING IN RENT CASE
A court ruling allowing landlords to evict from rent-stabilized apartments tenants who charge their roommates more than a fair share of the rent has been upheld by an appeals court. The appellate ruling also says that even if tenants are unaware of the law, they can still be evicted. The ruling stemmed from a case last year involving a disabled 70- year-old retiree, Jean E. Mazzolo, who took in a roommate at her Park Avenue apartment and charged him $2,200 when her monthly rent was less than $1,850. The woman's lawyer, Darnay Hoffman, is considering a further appeal.
Hope Reeves (NYT)"
: 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
: Joan MAZZOLA, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant
: 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; 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.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup