Graham Realty Assoc. LLC v Peller

Annotate this Case
[*1] Graham Realty Assoc. LLC v Peller 2006 NY Slip Op 50352(U) [11 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on March 9, 2006 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 9, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2005-543 K C.

Graham Realty Associates LLC, Respondent,

against

Arlene Peller, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Inez Muniz-Hoyos, J.), entered March 14, 2005. The order denied tenant's motion, in a nonpayment summary proceeding, to vacate a stipulation and the possessory final judgment, in the sum of $2,668.75, entered pursuant thereto.


Order reversed without costs and tenant's motion to vacate the stipulation and the final judgment granted.

Tenant's proof in the record adequately established that landlord included a security deposit of $783.75 and a carbon monoxide detector fee of $25 in the stipulation and in the possessory final judgment entered pursuant thereto in the sum of $2,668.75. Inasmuch as a security deposit is not "rent" (RPAPL 711 [2]; see General Obligations Law § 7-101 [1]) and, in the context of this rent-stabilized tenancy, the carbon monoxide detector fee cannot be considered "rent" (Related Tiffany v Faust, 191 Misc 2d 528 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]), the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over these items (Matter of Bedford Gardens Co. v Silberstein, 269 AD2d 445 [2d Dept 2000]) and could not include them in the final judgment. Accordingly, tenant's motion to vacate the stipulation and final judgment is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 9, 2006

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.