Tenant's Husband Not Included in Case

March 1, 1999

LVT Number: 13050

(Decision submitted by Sally E. Unger of the Manhattan law firm of Kossoff Alper & Unger, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant for nonprimary residence. The court ruled for landlord, and tenant's husband asked the court to reopen the case. He claimed that he should have been made a party to the case and that, since he wasn't, landlord's case should have been dismissed. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant's husband. Tenant's husband didn't show that he had any independent rights to the apartment.

(Decision submitted by Sally E. Unger of the Manhattan law firm of Kossoff Alper & Unger, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant for nonprimary residence. The court ruled for landlord, and tenant's husband asked the court to reopen the case. He claimed that he should have been made a party to the case and that, since he wasn't, landlord's case should have been dismissed. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant's husband. Tenant's husband didn't show that he had any independent rights to the apartment. Throughout the period in question, tenant's husband primarily resided in a rent-stabilized apartment in Queens. Tenant's rent-controlled apartment was in Manhattan.

412 W. 49th Acquisition Co., LLC v. Londono: NYLJ, p. 29, col. 2 (2/25/99) (App. T. 1 Dept.; Parness, PJ, McCooe, Davis, JJ)

Topics

More like this