Apartment Deregulation Already Decided in Prior Court Case

December 20, 2015

LVT Number: #26685

Landlord sued to evict tenant after his 2013 lease expired, claiming that tenant was unregulated. Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized. But in 2014 tenant had sued landlord in State Supreme Court based on the same claim. That court ruled against tenant. In this housing court case, tenant’s assistant attorney claimed that he wasn’t authorized to represent tenant on that date and sought an adjournment. The court went ahead with an inquest and ruled for landlord. The court found that tenant had intentionally defaulted and that this wasn’t an excusable default.

Landlord sued to evict tenant after his 2013 lease expired, claiming that tenant was unregulated. Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized. But in 2014 tenant had sued landlord in State Supreme Court based on the same claim. That court ruled against tenant. In this housing court case, tenant’s assistant attorney claimed that he wasn’t authorized to represent tenant on that date and sought an adjournment. The court went ahead with an inquest and ruled for landlord. The court found that tenant had intentionally defaulted and that this wasn’t an excusable default. Also, tenant failed to show a meritorious defense. The Supreme Court had already ruled that tenant wasn’t rent stabilized. 

 

 

 
105 West 75th Street, LLC v. Dixon: Index No. 63487/15, NYLJ No. 1202742615426 (Civ. Ct. NY; 11/2/15; Hahn, J)

Topics

More like this