1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)

Citation: 1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)
Parent Document: 1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2010-01-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6311119/1212-grand-concourse-llc-v-ynguil/ ↗

Full Text

1,153 chars

The petitioners contest the positions taken by the tenants and the NYCHA. Their primary counterargument is that they need only satisfy section 711 (1) of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. RPAPL 711 (1) authorizes a holdover proceeding based solely on the ground that a tenant “continues in possession of . . . the premises after the expiration of his term, without the permission of the landlord.” They reason that RPAPL 711 (1) applies because the lease was terminated according to the HAP contract which was terminated by the NYCHA, notwithstanding the fact that the terminations were a direct result of the petitioners’ failure to maintain HQS. Absent a lease, the petitioners believe they are freed from the constraints of 9 NYCRR 2524.3 and 2524.4, which, as indicated above, require good cause. Instead they insist that 9 NYCRR 2524.1 (c) furnishes an additional ground, to wit, that a tenant may be *209removed based on a “ground authorized in this Part or under . . . the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law,” thereby implicating RPAPL 711 (1). (See affirmation 1Í 5, contained in notice of cross motion, dated Oct. 30, 2009.)

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text