RP Wimbledon Owner, LLC v. Chisholm, 2025 NY Slip Op 25071 (2025)

Citation: RP Wimbledon Owner, LLC v. Chisholm, 2025 NY Slip Op 25071 (2025)
Parent Document: RP Wimbledon Owner, LLC v. Chisholm, 2025 NY Slip Op 25071 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10363714/rp-wimbledon-owner-llc-v-chisholm/ ↗

Full Text

1,349 chars

RPAPL § 751(1) allows a tenant holding over after nonpayment to obtain an automatic and indefinite stay of eviction upon depositing with the court clerk the rent due before issuance of a warrant. Additionally, courts have observed that any contractual provision allowing for the termination of a residential tenancy on grounds of nonpayment would be against public policy to the extent it did not allow a cure (61 East 72nd Street Corp. v Zimberg, 161 AD2d 542, 542 [1st Dept 1990]; Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank, 107 Misc 2d 318, 323-324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980]). As alluded to in Respondent's papers (see Phillips Aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 11, ¶¶ 36-37), the public policy consideration militating in favor of a cure option is New York's consistent endorsement of rent withholding as a valid means of motivating a landlord to comply with health and safety standards (see RPL § 235-b; MDL § 302-a; RPAPL § 770 et seq.; SSL § 143-b; Ansonia Assocs. v. Ansonia Residents' Assoc., 78 AD2d 211, 220 [1st Dept 1980]; Whitby Operating Corp. v. Schleissner, 117 Misc 2d 794, 800 [Sup Ct, NY Cnty 1982]). The possibility of an incurable lease termination for tenants who availed themselves of these remedies would undoubtedly have a chilling effect, to the detriment of the condition of the housing stock and the health and safety of the renting populace.

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text