Defense of Excusable Absence; Summary Eviction Proceeding for Nonpayment of Rent: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "215 W 88 LLC v. Sitney," and "109th Affordable Housing L.L.C. v. Beck."
March 26, 2024 at 01:49 PM
15 minute read
Landlord-Tenant—Rent Control—Tenant Failed To Maintain Apartment as Primary Residence—Defense of Excusable Absence Rejected—"Unavailability of Amenities In (NYC) Does Not Amount to a 'Reasonable Ground' for an Absence From a Rent-Controlled Apartment"—"Subletting Is a Factor In Determining That a Tenant Does Not Maintain A Rent-Controlled Apartment as Their Primary Residence"—"A Sublet Can Be Presumed When a Tenant Does Not Live In Their Apartment and Someone Else Does"—Tenant Only Spent 5.6% of the Days and 1.4% of the Nights During Relevant Time Period
A respondent tenant (tenant) is subject to the Rent Control Law. A landlord had commenced holdover proceeding against the tenant and against a co-respondent, seeking possession of the subject apartment on the grounds that the tenant "is a rent-controlled tenant who failed to maintain the (apartment) as her primary residence and that co-respondent's occupancy was derivative of respondent's tenancy." The tenant asserted a defense of "excusable absence." The court held a trial.
The parties had stipulated that between March 21, 2020, and July 13, 2022, the tenant had been at the apartment "in the afternoon thirty-two times and at the (apartment) overnight for an additional sixteen times."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: De Blasio Must Sit for Deposition in Suit Over City Program to Transfer Foreclosed Properties
Landlord Retaliation; Good Cause Eviction Law; Brokerage Commissions: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
- 5Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250