Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Citation
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-05-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6311519/payne-v-rivera/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
Full Text
933 charsMoreover, even if the court were to find that respondents had demonstrated as a matter of law that the two buildings constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling, the court’s analysis would not end there. Petitioner acknowledges that there are four residential units in the building in which the premises is not located, but she asserts that the building in which the premises is located is a single-family home and therefore that there are altogether fewer than the threshold number of six residential units. Petitioner allows that the single-family home has been divided into two residential units but argues that these units may not be counted toward the ETPA threshold of six because they are not only illegal but their illegality cannot be cured. Respondents acknowledge the premises’ illegality but they do not address the issue of whether the illegality can be cured other than by asserting that ETPA coverage obtains regardless.