Landlord v. Tenant: September 2016

MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Tenant Refused Access for Window Installation

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on building-wide installation of new windows. The DHCR ruled for landlord. One tenant filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that the DHCR’s decision was unreasonable because she had refused to grant landlord access to install new windows. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant. The DHCR’s decision was reasonable despite tenant's claim that, since the work wasn’t required by law, she had the right to refuse installation and shouldn’t be charged the MCI increase. Tenant also claimed that she didn’t get proper notice for the window installation, but she failed to raise this claim before the DHCR.

• Prioleua v. DHCR: 2016 NY Slip Op 05449, 2016 WL 3619836 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 7/7/16)

RENT STABILIZATION COVERAGE

Newly Created Apartment with High First Rent Was Exempt from Stabilization

Former tenant sued landlord, claiming that his apartment was rent stabilized. Landlord claimed that the unit was unregulated and asked the court to dismiss the case. The court ruled for landlord. Landlord had previously registered Apartment 805 as rent stabilized. But tenant’s Apartment 8F wasn't the same unit. Apartment 805 was combined in 1997 with four other units to create Apartment 8F. Because the perimeter walls were substantially moved when these apartments were combined, landlord was allowed to charge a first rent for Apartment 8F. The first monthly rent charged for Apartment 8F in 1997 was $6,995. Since this was more than $2,000, Apartment 8F was exempt from rent stabilization due to high-rent vacancy.

• Rubin v. Decker Associates LLC: 52 Misc.3d 1208(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 51070(U) (Sup. Ct. NY; 7/12/16)

TENANT NUISANCES

Three Incidents of Noise Didn't Create Nuisance

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for creating a nuisance by excessive noise on at least three occasions. Tenant denied landlord’s claim and asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Two of the three incidents described by landlord occurred during daytime hours and for less than one hour each. As a matter of law, the three incidents didn’t arise to a level of a pattern of recurring objectionable conduct that constituted a nuisance.

• 75 Fairview Realty Corp. v. Cepeda: 52 Misc.3d 1206(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 51041(U) (Civ. Ct. NY; 7/12/16)