Skip to main content

Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

Citation
Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]
Source verification
cross_accepted_sealed
Effective Date
2010-04-26

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,774 chars
Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen (2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U))

[*1]

Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen

2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

Decided on April 26, 2010

Civil Court Of The City Of New York, New York County

Lebovits, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 26, 2010

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York
County

Chinatown
Preservation HDFC, Petitioner,

against

Yu Hua Chen, Respondent, Unit 6 -and- PAN DE MING,
Respondent,

85489/2009

Steven T. Gee, New York City, for petitioner.

Geovanny Fernandez, New York City, for respondents.

Gerald Lebovits, J.

For the purposes of disposition, the above two cases have been consolidated
because they contain nearly identical facts and law.

I. Facts and Procedural History.

In September 2009, petitioner commenced separate nonpayment proceeding against both
respondent-tenants. Petitioner, Chinatown Preservation HDFC, is a not-for-profit corporation
that obtained title of the subject premises in February 2007. Yu Hua Chen has resided in Unit 6
of the subject premises since January 2006. Pan De Ming has resided in Unit 11 of the subject
premises since October 1999.

Both apartments previously had illegal partition walls creating three bedrooms. In June
2009, the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) and the Fire Department inspected the
subject premises and issued a violation for illegal partition walls. Respondent Chen vacated the
premises for approximately one month while the partitions were removed. Petitioner did not
charge respondent Chen rent for that time period. Respondent Ming had removed the partition