Baxter St. Props. v Lee

Annotate this Case
[*1] Baxter St. Props. v Lee 2010 NY Slip Op 51546(U) [28 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on September 1, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 1, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, J.


Baxter Street Properties, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, 570339/09

against

Kimmy Lee, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about September 5, 2008, after a nonjury trial, in favor of tenant dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.


Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about September 5, 2008, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Jean T. Schneider, J. at Civil Court.

In affirming, we emphasize that respondent's status as a rent stabilized tenant, effectively ratified by petitioner, initially accrued upon her execution of a stabilized lease agreement effective March l, 2003, at a time when the building premises was owned by a limited liability company, of which respondent was a non-managing member. Fixing "the rights and obligations of the parties based upon the legal ownership of the premises, without regard to such considerations as beneficial or equitable ownership" (Fanelli v New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, 757 [1982], affd 58 NY2d 952 [1983]), and applying the rule that a member of an LLC "has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company" (Limited Liability Company Law § 601), we agree that the demised apartment premises was not exempt from stabilization coverage as an owner-occupied unit (see and compare Steltzer v Eason, 175 AD2d 158 [1991]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 01, 2010

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.