Section 2520

Citation: Section 2520
Parent Document: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2016-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4334594/bartis-v-harbor-tech-llc/ ↗

Full Text

818 chars

For the reasons discussed above, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that their apartments are subject to rent stabilization and for class action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9, and properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiffs’ apartments are not subject to rent stabilization and for summary judgment dismissing the second through fourth causes of action and so much of the first cause of action as sought injunctive relief. Since the action is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiffs’ apartments are not subject to rent stabilization (see Lanza v Wagner,

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text