HUDSONCLIFF BUILDING CO INC v. CHANDLER (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

HUDSONCLIFF BUILDING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger CHANDLER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: January 30, 2001

SULLIVAN, P.J., ANDRIAS, WALLACH, SAXE and FRIEDMAN, JJ.

Martin S. Kera, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Steven A. Neil and Margaret G. King, for Defendants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2000, which, in an action by a landlord against a tenant and the Department of Buildings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the subject apartment is not legal, and cannot be made legal, for residential occupancy, and directing the tenant to vacate the apartment, denied the landlord's motion for summary judgment, sua sponte dismissed the complaint, and denied the Department of Buildings' cross motion for summary judgment as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly ruled that in view of the prior, unappealed Civil Court order finding that the subject apartment is covered by the Rent Stabilization Law, the landlord, in seeking a remedy against the tenant, must follow the procedural requirements of that law. Since it appears that the apartment is illegally occupied, we note the availability of an eviction proceeding where the “[o]ccupancy of the housing accommodation by the tenant is illegal because of the requirements of law and the owner is subject to civil or criminal penalties therefor” (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3 [c] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network