Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROSE ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Beverly JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 4, 1997, inter alia, awarding plaintiff landlord a money judgment representing arrears of interim use and occupancy, and immediate possession of the subject apartment as against defendant tenant and the remaining defendants claiming through her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Interim use and occupancy was properly awarded in an amount higher than the rent stated in the tenant's lease, and without consideration of the merits of the landlord's claim that the tenant was a holdover by reason of nonprimary residence, because, by order of the DHCR, the apartment had become deregulated upon expiration of the lease. Pending the immediately scheduled hearing before the Special Referee, at which the tenant failed to appear, and in the absence of countervailing proof from the tenant, the amount of interim use and occupancy was properly based on the affidavit of one of plaintiff's principals, who, while interested, clearly had knowledge of the building and of the rental value of its apartments. The tenant's failure to pay the interim use and occupancy was a violation of a condition to her right to remain in the apartment, “permitting defendant [landlord] to apply for appropriate relief, e.g., a money judgment, or eviction, or both” (Hodo v. Serrecchia, 100 A.D.2d 807, 474 N.Y.S.2d 738). We have considered appellants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 05, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)