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.

West 15th Street Associates, L.P v. Khadije Fares

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


June 8, 2011

WEST 15TH STREET ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
PETITIONER-LANDLORD-APPELLANT,
v.
KHADIJE FARES, TENANT-RESPONDENT, -AND- KASSEM FARES A/K/A SAMMY FARES,
"JOHN DOE" AND/OR "JANE DOE,"
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated September 10, 2010, which denied its motion for the entry of a default final judgment against tenant, and for summary judgment against respondent Kassem Fares in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per curiam.

West 15th St. Assoc., L.P. v Fares

Appellate Term, First Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 8, 2011

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ

Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated September 10, 2010, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that this holdover summary proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant and her son is not ripe for summary disposition. The record raises several triable issues as to whether, inter alia, landlord consented or acquiesced to any of the alterations to the subject apartment, including the installation of a stove, and whether those alterations constituted "significant violation[s]" of the "no alterations" clause of the parties' lease agreement (Ram I v Stuart, 248 AD2d 255, 256 [1998]; see Garay v Devine, NYLJ, October 27, 1989, at 21, col 1; Solow v Lubliner, NYLJ, June 6, 1990, at 21, col 2).

Given the strong "public policy [which] favors the disposition of matters on their merits" (Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004]), we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the entry of a default judgment against tenant at this juncture (id.; see Ahmad v Aniolowiski, 28 AD3d 692, 692-693 [2006]).

We have considered landlord's remaining contentions and find them lacking in substantial merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: June 08, 2011

20110608

© 1992-2011 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.