224 W. 10th St. Corp. v Gross
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 8, 2006
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
224 West 10th Street Corp., Petitioner,
against
Karen Gross, Respondent, "JOHN and/or JANE DOE," Undertenants.
L&T 104272/05
Attorney for Petitioner:Attorney for Respondent:
BY: Gregory G. Calabro, Esq. &BY: Steven A. Weissman, Esq.
Jennifer D'Ambrosio, Esq.9 East 40th Street, 11th Floor
1412 Broadway, Suite 1500New York, New York 10016
New York, New York 10018212-725-6100
646-688-6095
Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.
This nonprimary residence holdover proceeding was predicated upon the expiration of a "Golub" notice alerting the rent stabilized tenant that her lease would not be renewed as of November 30, 2005. Respondent had not signed a renewal lease since 1999 and Petitioner acknowledged that it had not initially offered a renewal lease after the expiration of the last-signed two-year renewal, which ended on December 31, 2001. However, Petitioner contended that it had offered a renewal lease on August 18, 2004, and Respondent failed to reply to that offer. Therefore, Petitioner asserted that it deemed Respondent had a one-year renewal lease, effective December 1, 2004, and based the Golub notice and this proceeding on that deemed renewal.
By Decision/Order dated May 5, 2006, this Court granted Respondent's cross-motion and dismissed the proceeding on the finding that Petitioner's renewal of the tenant's lease was improper in that it was deemed renewed for a one-year term, rather than [*2]for a two-year term in accordance with the terms of all of the prior renewal leases signed by Respondent.
Petitioner now moves, pursuant to CPLR §2221, for reargument of Respondent's cross-motion and its motion. It is Petitioner's contention that the Court misapprehended both the law and the facts in deciding that Petitioner was bound to deem the lease renewed for two years rather than the one-year.
Petitioner asserts, as it had argued in opposition to the initial cross-motion, that since Respondent began paying the higher rental amount in September 2005, she acknowledged the one-year renewal lease and was bound by it. In support of its argument that the Court misapplied the law in its prior finding, Petitioner asserts that the Court did not apply a DHCR finding which it alleged is on point with the facts in this proceeding. Petitioner asserts that the DHCR has "primary jurisdiction" in matters over which it has specialized knowledge and that the agency's "views should be followed by and made available to the courts" (Affirmation in Support, par. 19). Therefore, Counsel argues, "... the court should have followed DHCR's ruling in this area."The "ruling" referred to by Counsel is a purported DHCR Opinion Letter, dated December 19, 2002, which was never raised or argued by Petitioner in the original opposition to Respondent's cross-motion.
The Court agrees that, given the DHCR's expertise, an opinion letter carries sufficient weight to be considered by the Court when determining a matter involving rent stabilization law. See 101 West 70th Street Associates v Desoiza (NYLJ, Apr. 9, 1997, at 28, col 3 [Civ Ct, NY Cty]).And, as stated by the Court of Appeals, the DHCR's "interpretation of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference." (Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791.)
However, the Court is not persuaded by Petitioner's argument that Respondent ratified the one-year renewal by paying the higher rental amount as of September 2005 after the August service of the Golub notice and a DHCR registration statement. There is no evidence that Petitioner began billing Respondent at the higher rental amount or took any steps between December 2004 and August 2005 to notify Respondent that the lease had been deemed renewed by Petitioner or that she was required to pay a higher rent.Based upon the foregoing, the Court rejects Petitioner's argument that it either misapplied the facts or misapprehended the applicable law in this matter. Therefore, the Decision/Order dated May 5, 2006, dismissing the proceeding, remains the same. The motion to reargue is denied.
Respondent's cross-motion is granted solely to the extent that the Court, in denying Petitioner's motion, affirms the dismissal of the proceeding. The balance of the cross-motion, seeking other determinations regarding the validity of the lease renewal or its starting date, is denied without prejudice to renewal at the DHCR or in future proceedings regarding this matter.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
.
[*3]
Dated: New York, New York
September 8, 2006_________________________________
Pam Jackman-Brown, J.H.C.
Copies to both sides:
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.
