Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)

Citation: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Parent Document: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-06-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6620002/sapp-v-clark-wilson-inc/ ↗

Full Text

784 chars

In its order, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellants did not have standing to seek vacancy leases because they were licensees, not subtenants. Resolution of this issue is unnecessary, however, because, even assuming arguendo that the appellants are properly treated as subtenants, the owners demonstrated, prima facie, that the prime tenancies were not illusory, so as to accord the appellants the rights of such prime tenants under the Rent Stabilization Law and Code. The merits of that issue, which were raised in the Supreme Court and briefed in this Court, can properly be considered as an alternative ground for affirmance (see e.g. Kauffman v Turner Constr. Co., 195 AD3d 1003, 1005; see also Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-546).

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text