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
547 chars*473Respondents bear the burden of establishing this affirmative defense of ETPA coverage but they make no showing that the premises can be legalized. Instead, they argue that since the ETPA is remedial, it should be read broadly to include all residential units not explicitly excluded from its coverage, that Wolinsky and its progeny should be read as confined to lofts and commercial tenancies, and that the health and safety concerns that underlie the Multiple Dwelling Law’s prohibition of illegal units ought not to inform the decision here.