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

1,302 chars

The Bromer court in analyzing the applicable statute and regulations held “it is doubtful that the Legislature intended for disputes over succession to be vested exclusively with DHCR” (id. at 203). The court further held requiring a landlord to obtain a certificate of eviction “would necessarily relegate all succession claims where the rent-controlled tenant has permanently vacated to the more protracted processes of the administrative agency, effectively negating the summary remedy available under RPAPL 713” (id. at 202). However in Braschi regarding the same provisions the Court held “a court’s role is not to delve into the minds of legislators, but rather to effectuate the statute by carrying out the purpose of the statute as it is embodied in the words chosen by the Legislature” (Braschi at 208). The court’s conclusion in Bromer presupposes that the legislature intended a remaining family member to be subject to a quick eviction based on a notice to quit, rather than require a landlord to take a slower approach by applying to DHCR for a certificate of eviction, and is difficult to reconcile with holdings of the Court of Appeals, such as in Braschi, that 9 NYCRR 2204.6 was intended to protect remaining family members from sudden eviction after the death of the tenant of record.

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text