HELLER v. MIDDAGH STREET ASSOCIATES (2004)

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

Neddi HELLER, et al., appellants, v. MIDDAGH STREET ASSOCIATES, respondent.

Decided: February 02, 2004

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.

Hartman, Ule, Rose & Ratner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jacques F. Rose of counsel), for appellants Neddi Heller, Will Halgren, Heather J. Bates, Cheryl Spielman, Ann Devere, Saundi Wilson, Henry Yee, Michael Keel, Joanie James, Ronda Kaysen, Thomas Kandanian, Marissa Mandel, Nona S. Lynch, Lauren Smilowitz, George Cohen, Cedric Turner, Donna Peters, Marion M. Lukasik, Gary Minda, Nancy Minda, Aurora Aguero, Jay Siegall, Karen Zebulon, Amanda Anderson, Ollie Johnson, Kathleen Johnson, Peter Vanerp, John Heward, Katherine Davis, Mary Sillman, Carole Magary, David A. Cohen, Dorothy Barnhouse, Jack Bales, Anita Karl, and James Kemp. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York, N.Y. (Kirk Hoffman and Andrew Schapiro of counsel), for appellants James Sepyo Cameron, Mary Weeks, Avis Allman, Wayne Sorce, Daniel J. Hunyady, and Farrand B. Ennis. Davidoff & Malito, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark E. Spund of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G.Aronin, J.), dated September 27, 2002, as granted those branches of the defendant's cross motion which were to dismiss their first, third, and fourth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their first cause of action in which they claimed that by attaching rent stabilization riders to certain leases, and by tendering rent renewal leases using rent stabilization forms, the defendant contractually agreed to subject the appellants' apartments to the Rent Stabilization Law (see Mayflower Assoc. v. Gray, NYLJ, Mar. 1, 1994, at 21, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept, Parness, J.P.]; 7 Dunham Place Realty v. Arndt, 189 Misc.2d 710, 715, 734 N.Y.S.2d 825).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law