Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)

Citation: Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)
Parent Document: Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2012-02-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6313383/golden-mountain-realty-inc-v-severino/ ↗

Full Text

1,179 chars

There is authority that holds that courts and DHCR have concurrent jurisdiction to determine succession claims to rent control tenancies. However these cases, like Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co. and Misthopoulos v Estate of Ruhl (183 AD2d 651 [1992]), were originally cases commenced in Supreme Court seeking declaratory relief (see also Greenberg v Coronet Props. Co., 167 AD2d 291 [1990] [declaratory judgment action commenced seeking to evict daughter from deceased mother’s rent-controlled apartment]). For example, in Misthopoulos v Estate of Ruhl the Appellate Division held that DHCR and courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine succession rights to a rent-controlled apartment. In Ruhl, the owner had commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the apartment was no longer subject to rent control and directing DHCR to issue a certificate of eviction against the occupants. The Court citing 9 NYCRR 2204.4 held that DHCR could only issue a certificate of eviction “upon application made to the agency by the landlord,” but also held that both the agency and the courts had concurrent jurisdiction to determine succession rights

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text