Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Citation
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-06-06
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
- Ghadamian v. Channing, 295 A.D.2d 127 (2002)
Full Text
731 charsThe counterclaims that were the subject of plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment are clearly without merit. The tenant’s counterclaim for retaliatory eviction is based on the allegation that plaintiff has known—perhaps since 1974, but certainly since at least 1983, when it brought the holdover proceeding—of a pre-existing lease, and tried to impose a less favorable lease by its recent proffer. Plaintiff counters, just as forcefully, that he did not know of the 1972 lease (which, at the very least, would have been earning him more than $500 per month in rent since 1974), and that enforcement of the law (i.e., insisting that the tenant conform to the certificate of occupancy) cannot be considered retaliation.