163 Broadway Assoc., LLC v Orton
Annotate this CaseDecided on February 20, 2009
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
163 Broadway Associates, LLC, Petitioners-Landlord
against
Lance Orton Sr., 601 West 163rd Street a/k/a 3901 Broadway, Apt. 4j New York, New York 10032, Respondent-Tenant
L & T 88077/08
HEIBERGER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner
Robert Ehrlich, Esq.
205 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 532-0500
LANCE ORTON SR.
Respondent Pro Se
601 West 163rd Street a/k/a
3901 Broadway, Apt 4J
New York, New York 10032
Sabrina B. Kraus, J.
BACKGROUND
This summary nonpayment proceeding was commenced
by 163 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC ("Petitioner") seeks to recover possession
of Apartment 4J, at 601 West 163rd Street A/k/a 3901 Broadway ("Subject Premises") based on
the allegation that LANCE ORTON SR. ("Respondent") the rent-stabilized tenant of
record, had failed to pay rent for the Subject Premises.
PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe rent demand was issued on or
about September 19, 2008, seeking $14,051.43 in rent arrears, for the period of July 2007
through September 2008. On or about October 3, 2008 a notice of petition and petition were
issued for the same period of time, in addition to rent for October 2008. On October 8, 2008,
Respondent filed an answer alleging that there were conditions in the Subject Premises requiring
repair, and disputing the amount sued for. On or about October 15, 2008, Respondent filed an
amended answer, which references the prior non-payment proceeding between the parties, and
states that the arrears sought are not valid and that payments Respondent had made prior to
December 2007 had not been credited.
The proceeding was initially returnable on October 15, 2008. It was adjourned to
November 3, 2008 due to Respondent having surgery. It was adjourned over a few more dates
for access and repairs to be done, and for which the Court assigned a Resource Assistant to be
present. On February 9, 2009 there was a proposed stipulation which was executed by the parties
resolving the case. However, after the allocution by the Court, the stipulation was rejected by
Respondent, and the matter was scheduled for trial on February 9, 2009.
On February 9, 2009 the proceeding was assigned to Part S for trial. The trial
commenced and was completed on the same day. After trial the court reserved decision.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner failed to establish key elements of its prima facie case at trial. The
main defects in Petitioner's prima facie case concern establishing the legal rent, and
establishing an agreement between the parties to pay rent, or even a landlord tenant relationship
between the parties. Pursuant to the deed (Pet. Ex. "1") in evidence, Petitioner became the owner
of the [*2]Subject Building on July 11, 2007. According to the
rent history (Pet. Ex. "5"), Respondent has made no payments since Petitioner took ownership.
Petitioner offered one lease renewal ("Renewal") into evidence (Pet. Ex. "4"). The Renewal is
dated October 1, 2007, for a term from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009. The
Renewal has two stamps on it. On the top it is stamped "REVISED" in bold letters, and on the
bottom, where the Respondent's signature would otherwise go, it is stamped "DEEMED" in bold
red letters. Next to the "DEEMED" stamp is a date, written in black ink, of August 25, 2008. In
blue ink is Respondent's signature, with the annotation "per ct agreement 2/9/09". The managing
agent's signature is also on the document, in blue ink, without a date. Petitioner offered no
testimony regarding how or why the revised deemed Renewal was created, and what "revisions"
were made.
The Court finds that based on the preponderance of evidence offered at trial, the
Renewal is not valid, and is insufficient to establish a landlord tenant relationship between the
parties or an agreement to pay rent. The Court's finding is based on the following detailed facts.
The Renewal was signed in Court, at the same time and in conjunction with the proposed
stipulation of settlement, which was ultimately rejected by Respondent and the Court.
Additionally, the document appears to be invalid on its face. This determination is based in part
on a prior non-payment proceeding between the parties, referenced in the Respondent's answer,
and which the Court has taken Judicial Notice of in reaching its determination, with notice to and
on consent of both parties.
In 2007, Petitioner sued Respondent for nonpayment of rent under Index Number
91042/07 ("Prior Proceeding"). The Prior Proceeding was discontinued, without prejudice, after
being assigned to Judge Wendt for trial on December 17, 2007. In the Prior Proceeding,
Petitioner alleged that Respondent's rent was $1200.00 per month, pursuant to a written rental
agreement, and sought rent for the period of February 2007, prior to the time Petitioner owned
the building, through October 2007, at a rental of $1200.00 per month.
Petitioner was not able to establish in the Prior Proceeding that the legal rent was
$1200.00 per month, and thus discontinued the proceeding without prejudice. Almost one year
later, Petitioner started this proceeding. Petitioner's agent, Cynthia Marrero testified that
Petitioner had attempted to contact the prior owner, and obtain the documents necessary to prove
that the Subject Premises was renovated, and that legal rent was based on allowable increases
pursuant to the improvements made. Ms. Marrero testified that Petitioner was not able to do so,
and thus effective September 2008, Petitioner started billing Respondent at $957.59 per month,
rather than $1269.00 per month, which Petitioner had billed from February 2008 forward.
The Renewal was not created on October 1, 2007, as its date would suggest, it is not
a proper renewal, and there is no basis in the record to allow Petitioner to deem it renewed (RSC
§2523.5[a], [c][1]). Months after the Renewal was purportedly issued and dated, Petitioner
commenced the Prior Proceeding seeking rent at $1200.00 per month. The Renewal was
probably first drafted after September 2008, and whether it was ever presented to Respondent,
prior to the court date on February 9, 2008 in conjunction with the proposed stipulation of
settlement, is not apparent from the record. Certainly, Petitioner did not prove the allegation in
paragraph two of the Petition, that Respondent is in possession pursuant to a written rental
agreement wherein he agreed to pay $957.59 at trial.
The DHCR registration records put into evidence by Petitioner indicate that on June
17, 2004, Respondent was living in Apartment 6B at the Subject Building, and that the tenant of
[*3]record for the Subject Premises was Maria Feliz at a legal
rent of $679.82. The next registration for the Subject Premises lists Respondent as the tenant of
record, with a lease that ran from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. The rent listed
for said lease is $905.52. The registration for 2005, along with all subsequent registrations, were
filed on January 5, 2009, after the commencement of this proceeding, and appear to be amended
registrations indicated by an asterisk next to the apartment number.
Though there was neither testimony, nor documentary evidence, indicating the date
and terms of the lease under which Respondent became the tenant of record for the Subject
Premises, the Court presumes that Respondent became the tenant effective January 1, 2005.
There is also no evidence in the record as to whether the initial tenancy was for a one year period
or a two year period, nor any conclusive evidence as to whether Respondent moved from one
apartment to the other at the owners request or for his own purpose.
The rent history ( Pet. Ex. "5") indicates that from July 2007 through December
2007, Respondent was billed at a rate of $1200.00 per month. In January 2008, which would
have been the next term for a renewal, Petitioner started billing Respondent at a rate of $1269.00
per month representing a 5.75% increase, which presumably would have been for a two year
period.
The Renewal is based on a previous rent of $905.52. It is not clear where this figure
came from. There does not appear to have ever been a lease agreement between the parties at
said rate. Assuming arguendo that the Petitioner had just resolved to take a 20% vacancy
over the last registered rent that would amount to $815.78. Thus Petitioner failed to establish any
entitlement to rent for July 2007 through December 2007 at a rent of $905.52.
The Court finds that based on the pleadings and the prior litigation between the
parties, putting in an amended registration, initially filed with DHCR months after the
commencement of this proceeding, is insufficient in and of itself, to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the rent sought is legal. This conclusion is further supported by Petitioner's
failure to offer into evidence any valid rental agreement between the parties, or between
Respondent and the prior owner, that would support a finding that the rent sought was legal, as
well as the substantial inconsistencies raised by the rent history that was put into evidence.
(Mangano v. DHCR, 30 AD2d 267 [1st Dept, 2006][inadequacies and
inconsistencies in documentation presented by landlord justified finding of overcharge] quoting
Matter of Argo v. DHCR, 257 AD2d 455[1999]).
Under Rent Stabilization the legal regulated rent must be based on the documented
legal rent four years prior to the interposition of a pleading challenging the legality of the rent
(Auto Park Inc. v. Bugdaycay, 7
Misc 3d 292 [2004]). Respondent first challenged the legality of the rent for the Subject
Premises on October 12, 2007, in the Prior Proceeding, wherein it is noted in the Court file as
part of Respondent's answer, that he disputed the amount sued for, and which issue served as the
basis for Petitioner's discontinuance of the Prior Proceeding at trial.
It is Petitioner's burden to provide documentation establishing the legal regulated
rent on the base date, and to provide documentation regarding the rent history to show that the
rent charged is the legal regulated rent (Auto Park., supra; 4947 Associates v. DHCR 199
AD2d 179 [1st Dept, 1993]). Petitioner has not met its burden in either regard.
Based on the forgoing, the Court dismisses the petition. As the Court was not able,
based on the record at trial, to determine what the legal registered rent for the Subject Premises,
and because Respondent did not assert any counterclaim for rent overcharge in this proceeding,
the matter of the legal rent remains unresolved. Respondent, if so advised, may file a complaint
[*4]with DHCR and have that agency make such a determination.
The Court notes that the parties had agreed amongst themselves to further access
dates to finish alleged necessary repairs in the Subject Premises. The record at trial established
that Respondent was not cooperative in providing access to the Subject Premises, and maintained
an unsanitary and cluttered apartment. The evidence further established Respondent harbors
Rottweiler in the Subject Premises that prevents or limits Petitioner from making repairs, and
which Respondent permits to urinate and defecate in the Subject Premises. Given said findings,
the Court declines to order Petitioner to make any repairs, other than what the parties had agreed
to between themselves at the conclusion of the trial in this proceeding.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
Dated: New York, New York
February 20, 2009 Sabrina B. Kraus, JHC
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.
