New Trial Needed on Whether Tenant's Apartment Was Deregulated
LVT Number: #31766
Landlord sued in 2016 to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed that the apartment wasn't rent stabilized because its outer dimensions had been substantially altered. The court dismissed the case after trial, finding that the unit was rent stabilized and landlord therefore hadn't proved its case alleging exemption from rent stabilization.
Landlord appealed, and the case was reopened. In response to tenant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case at the end of trial, the court should've accepted landlord's evidence as true and given landlord the benefit of every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn. The court based its ruling based on an assessment of witness credibility, which shouldn't be considered. The case was sent back for a new trial.
222 Stanhope II, LLC v. Bagamery: Index No. 2020-868KC, 2021 NY Slip Op 51075(U)(App. T. 2 Dept.; 11/12/21; Elliot, JP, Weston, Golia, JJ)
More like this
- Trial Needed to Determine Whether Building Contained Six or More Apartments
- Pre-Trial Questioning Permitted to Determine Whether Apartment Was Properly Deregulated
- Questions of Fact Require Trial on Whether Apartment Was Unregulated
- Trial Must Determine Whether Building Is Exempt from Rent Stabilization