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.

Little West 12th St. Realty, L.P. v. Inconiglios

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 20, 2009

LITTLE WEST 12TH ST. REALTY, L.P. D/B/A LITTLE WEST 12TH ST. REALTY CO. A/K/A L.W. 12TH ST. REALTY CO., PETITIONER-LANDLORD-APPELLANT,
v.
VINCENT INCONIGLIOS, RESPONDENT-TENANT-RESPONDENT, AND "XYZ CORP.," "JOHN DOE" AND "JANE DOE," RESPONDENTS-UNDERTENANTS.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), dated February 20, 2008, which granted tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per curiam.

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 printed Miscellaneous Reports.

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ.

Order (David B. Cohen, J.), dated February 20, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by David B. Cohen, J. at Civil Court, that tenant demonstrated entitlement to protection under the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law art 7-C). Tenant's submissions, including the affidavits of current and former building residents, demonstrated that a portion of the subject building, formerly used for commercial purposes, was occupied as the residence or home of three or more independently living families during the original window period (April 1, 1980 through December 1, 1981), and that at least one unit was continuously occupied for residential purposes from the original window period through May 1, 1987 (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 281[1],[4]). Landlord's conclusory allegations in opposition, denying knowledge of or consent to the residential use of the premises, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see 545 Eighth Ave. Assoc. v New York City Loft Bd., 232 AD2d 153 [1996]; Kaufman v American Electrofax Corp., 102 AD2d 140 [1984]).

We have considered landlord's remaining arguments and find them without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE ORDER AND DECISION OF THE COURT.

20090320

© 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.