Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)

Citation: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Parent Document: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9328646/liggett-v-lew-realty-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,131 chars

Furthermore, even if Kent were still good law, it is distinguishable from the facts of this case in two respects. First, the tenant in Kent had admitted in the stipulation at issue that her primary residence was outside of New York City (Kent v Bedford Apts. Co., 1996 WL 34574804 [Sup Ct, NY County 1996]; see also Draper v Georgia Props., Inc., 230 AD2d 455, 459 [1st Dept 1997], affd 94 NY2d 809 [1999] ["tenants [in Kent] actually were holdover occupants who, by virtue of the stipulation, secured lease rights which they otherwise would not have had"]). Thus, she was not entitled to a rent-stabilized lease. Second, here, the lease rider, which McKinney signed on the same day as the 2000 stipulation, contained the same provision as in the stipulation, that, despite the "initial legal regulated" $1,650 monthly rent McKinney agreed to, "for as long as [McKinney] remains in [*7]occupancy," he would only have to pay $650 per month plus Rent Guidelines Board increases on that amount. Accordingly, unlike the tenant in Kent, McKinney had Rent Stabilization rights under the lease on the same day he executed the stipulation.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text