Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bikman v. New York City Loft Board

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 30, 2008

IN RE CHARLA BIKMAN, ETC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily J. Goodman, J.), entered May 11, 2007, inter alia, granting the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated January 9, 2003, which granted the owner's abandonment application and denied petitioner's application for reimbursement of the fixtures installed and improvements made in the subject loft by petitioner's decedent, and remanding the matter for an appraisal of the fixtures and improvements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire, Acosta, JJ.

113348/06

Loft Board Order No. 3049 denied petitioner's reconsideration application. Loft Board Order No. 2770 is the underlying order. Therefore, Order No. 2770 is "the final agency determination from which judicial review may be sought" (see 22 RCNY 1-07[d][ii]).

Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's determination, which was adopted by respondent, the estate of a loft tenant is entitled to the value of improvements installed by the tenant (see Matter of Moskowitz v Jorden, 27 AD3d 305, 306 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 783 [2006]). Thus, respondent's grant of the owner's abandonment application without requiring a sale of the improvements and compensation therefor to the estate was affected by an error of law (CPLR 7803[3]). Respondent's argument that petitioner waived any right to compensation for the value of the improvements because she never asserted this claim before surrendering the unit in 2001 is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman, 57 NY2d 588, 593 [1982]). In any event, the estate did not waive its rights to the unit, because petitioner surrendered the unit in her individual capacity following Housing Court litigation to which the estate was not a party.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20081230

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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