Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

138-140 Village Owners Corp. v. Dillard

Other Lower Courts

December 28, 2007

138-140 Village Owners Corp., Petitioner Landlord,
v.
Patricia Dillard, Respondent-Tenants "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondent-Undertenants.

Editorial Note:

This case is not published in a printed volume and its disposition appears in a table in the reporter.

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Ilene H. Guralnick Attorneys for Petitioner

By: Ilene H. Guralnick, Esq. Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue Joseph Attorneys for Respondent By: William J. Gribben, Esq.

OPINION

David B. Cohen, J.

Introduction

In this residential holdover proceeding, this court must decide whether respondent, Patricia Dillard, is using rent-controlled Apartment 3RE, located at 140 West 10th Street, New York, New York 10014, along with the next door apartment, 3RW, as a single primary residence. This court conducted a trial over a period of three days. Respondent, Patricia Dillard, building superintendent, James Ward, a member of petitioner's board, Jerome Reed, and building resident, Timothy Moore, testified at trial. This court credits the testimony of Ms. Dillard, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Moore and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

Respondent testified that in or around 1950, she and her husband began living in apartment 3RW. In 1960, her husband and the prior landlord signed the lease for apartment 3RE, a separate unit located next door to apartment 3RW. They expanded into apartment 3RE because they wanted extra space. Upon occupying 3RE, respondent built shelves and closets and moved her art supplies into the new apartment. Respondent's husband passed away in 1968. In December 1989, the building converted to a cooperative but respondent did not purchase her apartments.

I. Apartment 3RE

Apartment 3RE has its own entrance separate from 3RW and has its own door and mailbox keys. It has a kitchen, bedroom, and living room, and is furnished with a drawing table, easel, chest, chairs, closets, shelves, cabinetry, mirrors, and a double bed. There is a toaster oven, portable hot plate, slow cooker, mini-refrigerator, desktop computer with a printer, [1] television, phone, and multiple radios and lamps throughout the apartment. The kitchen contains pots, pans, cups, saucers, dishes and bowls, among other kitchen-related utensils. Apartment 3RE has a toilet and deep double sink, but lacks a shower and bathtub. [2] Since 1997, when respondent got a toaster-oven, the stove and gas service in 3RE have been disconnected.

II. Apartment 3RW

Like 3RE, 3RW contains a kitchen, bedroom, and living room, and is furnished with tables, chest, chairs, closets, shelves, cabinetry, mirrors, and a double bed. There is a toaster oven, television, phone, and multiple radios. The kitchen contains pots, pans, cups, saucers, dishes and bowls, and other kitchen-related utensils. However, only 3RW is outfitted with a bathtub, full-sized refrigerator, operational stove, and gas ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.