643 Realty LLC v Thadal

[*1] 643 Realty LLC v Thadal 2007 NY Slip Op 50672(U) [15 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on March 28, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-405 K C.

643 Realty LLC, Respondent,

against

Raymonde Thadal, Appellant, -and- DONNASHA S. McKENZIE, JANE GERTRUDE JOSEPHINE WARD, INNOCENT ASINOBI, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, Undertenants.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Marie Jimenez, J.), entered April 15, 2005. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Final judgment affirmed without costs.

In this holdover proceeding based, inter alia, on a claim that tenant sublet her apartment for an amount in excess of that permitted under the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (see 9 NYCRR § 2525.6 [b]), the record shows, contrary to tenant's contention, that tenant's profiteering was not insubstantial, as she charged her subtenants far in
excess of the $492.41 monthly rent. Such conduct was not subject to a post-judgment cure (see Matter of 151-155 Atlantic Ave., Inc. v Pendry, 308 AD2d 543 [2003]), and service of a 10-day notice to cure, required by the lease for defaults thereunder, was not required, since this proceeding was based not upon a default under the lease but upon tenant's violation of RSC § [*2]2525.6 (b). Contrary to tenant's further contention, the proof at trial established that tenant is rent stabilized, not rent controlled, as she admitted that she moved into the apartment after June 30, 1971 (see L 1971, c 371, as amended by L 1971, c 1012; Matter of Schaper v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 298 AD2d 260 [2002]). Moreover, the proof showed that the building was purchased from the City, and, upon such purchase, all the units in the building became rent stabilized (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-507 [a]). Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 2007