EVICTION

Landlord Could Recover Unregulated Apartment When Lease Term Ended

Landlord sued to evict an unregulated tenant after tenant's lease had expired. Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized and that landlord failed to give him a reasonable accommodation for a disability. He also asked for attorney's fees. Landlord asked the court to dismiss tenant's defenses and counterclaim. The court ruled against landlord in December 2023.

Landlord appealed and won. Landlord had demonstrated that the apartment was unregulated as a matter of law. And any alleged failure to give tenant a reasonable accommodation was not a defense to landlord's right to recover an unregulated apartment at the end of tenant's lease term.

• 69-81 108th Realty, LLC v. Zaroogian: Index No. 2023-1991 QC; 2025 NY Slip Op 50824(U)(App. T. 2; 5/2/25)

PASSING ON APARTMENTS

Landlord Can Pursue Claim to Recover Rent-Stabilized Apartment from Tenant's Wife

Landlord sued the wife of a deceased rent-stabilized tenant in State Supreme Court in order to recover the apartment. Landlord sought declaratory relief, a money judgment, possession of the apartment, and a finding of fraud against the wife. The wife asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it should have been brought in housing court, not Supreme Court.

The court ruled against the wife, who appealed and lost. Supreme Court has general jurisdiction over actions by a landlord against a tenant, and the wife otherwise presented no reasons why landlord's claims should be dismissed. The parties disputed whether the wife had the legal right as the former tenant's spouse to succeed to the apartment, so declaratory relief was appropriate. Landlord's complaint also presented adequate detail as to why it claimed fraud against the wife. The appeals court did agree that landlord's claim for punitive damages should be dismissed. 

• Domen Holding Co. v. Sanders: Index No. 154623/24, App. No. 4328, Case No. 2024-07069, 2025 NY Slip Op 02871 (App. Div. 1; 5/13/25)

REQUIRED SERVICES

No Rent Reduction Where Service Modification Resulted from Construction Next Door

Landlord applied to the DHCR for permission to seal off lot-line windows for apartment bedrooms and kitchens of the "S" and "T" lines of its building. The DRA ruled for landlord on condition that the affected tenants receive permanent 3 percent rent reductions.

Landlord appealed and won. Landlord pointed out that its request was to seal off lot-line windows, which didn't affect light and air to tenants' apartments. And the reason for the request was that a different owner had constructed a building next door to landlord's building, which now obstructed air and light to the "S" and "T" lines in landlord's building. Landlord had no control over the next-door construction, which it had sought to modify through unsuccessful talks with the other owner. The DHCR pointed out that, in order to be consistent with related proceedings where a court granted an Article 78 appeal of separate DHCR orders concerning the same building, it must rule for landlord. The rent reductions were revoked. 

• Surat Realty: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. KP210004RO, KP210005RO (4/8/25)