Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Citation
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Parent Document
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
Full Text
681 charsLandlords, the sponsors of a cooperative conversion, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession of an apartment rented by tenant and “undertenant” (hereinafter tenants) subsequent to the conversion. Their petition alleged, inter alia, that tenants were not “non-purchasing tenants” *374within the meaning of the Martin Act (General Business Law § 352-eeee) because they were not in possession at the time of the conversion. It also alleged that tenants had rejected a renewal lease offered by landlords. In their answer, tenants asserted as one of several affirmative defenses that they were “non-purchasing tenants,” and they counterclaimed for retaliatory eviction.