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
744 charsIf this is so, there can be no valid distinction between tenants in possession at the time of the conversion and those *378who rent from sponsors after the conversion. If a sponsor chooses to rent an apartment after a conversion rather than to sell it, this will ordinarily be because market conditions favor a rental over a sale. When these conditions change, the sponsor will again find it financially advantageous to discontinue renting. If it was the Legislature’s intention to protect tenants from dislocations caused by this shift in the owner’s economic interest, it could only address the problem thoroughly by protecting tenants that rent from sponsors after the conversion as well as those in possession at the time of the conversion.