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.
Allegra KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEDFORD APARTMENTS CO., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 14, 1996, which, in an action to recover rent overcharges, granted defendant landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff tenant's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
After defendants commenced a holdover proceeding against plaintiff, the roommate of the recently deceased tenant of record of the subject apartment, the parties entered into a court-ordered stipulation under which plaintiff, who expressly represented that her primary residence was outside New York City, was given a rent-stabilized lease to the apartment and waived any right to challenge the rent charged by defendants. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.13 prohibits the waiver, under any and all circumstances, of a tenant's rights under the Rent Stabilization Law, plaintiff had not yet been established as a rent-stabilized tenant at the time she entered into the stipulation, and thus cannot rely on that provision. Plaintiff had a choice of either obtaining a judicial declaration of her status under the rent laws or entering into a stipulation that, much to her advantage, conferred that status. As indicated, we perceive no public policy or other reason for disregarding that choice, made with advice of counsel (see, Mitchell v. New York Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 208, 214, 473 N.Y.S.2d 148, 461 N.E.2d 285).
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: March 11, 1997
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)