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
547 charsWe do not read this provision, as do the tenants, as focusing on the size of the increase. Rather, its clear meaning is that the rent may not be increased beyond the rents being charged for comparable apartments. Contrary to what tenants may believe and the Housing Court may have indicated, the purpose of the statute was not to institute a system of rent regulation for “non-purchasing tenants” but to prevent sponsors from charging these tenants above-market rents as a means of forcing them out (see, Legislative Finding, L 1982, ch 555, § 1).