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
604 charsIn Wolinsky v Kee Yip Realty Corp. (2 NY3d 487 [2004]) the court held that “illegal conversions do not fall under the ambit of the ETPA” (at 493; see also Gloveman Realty Corp. v Jefferys, 18 AD3d 812 [2d Dept 2005]; Caldwell v American Package Co., Inc., 57 AD3d 15 [2d Dept 2008]). In Sheila Props., Inc. v A Real Good Plumber, Inc. (59 AD3d 424 [2d Dept 2009]) the court wrote that there might be an exception and ETPA coverage obtained for an illegal unit if, among other things, the landlord were seeking to legalize the premises. Implicitly, then, legalization would have to be legally permissible.