Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Chini v. Chini, 189 A.D.3d 986 (2020)

Citation
Chini v. Chini, 189 A.D.3d 986 (2020)
Parent Document
Chini v. Chini, 189 A.D.3d 986 (2020)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2020-12-09

Full Text

823 chars
Here, Albert and Mary failed to establish, prima facie, that the apartment and the plaintiff's tenancy were not protected under the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 and the Rent Stabilization Code. Pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.6(d), a "tenant" means "[a]ny person or persons named on a lease as lessee or lessees, or who is or are a party or parties to a rental agreement and obligated to pay rent for the use or occupancy of a housing accommodation." The evidence submitted by Albert and Mary in support of their motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, the plaintiff was a party to a "rental agreement" (see Rent Stabilization Code §§ 2520.6[d]; 2520.11). Accordingly, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant their motion for summary judgment.