145 Montague St. Realty Corp. v Nerresian

Annotate this Case
[*1] 145 Montague St. Realty Corp. v Nerresian 2007 NY Slip Op 52277(U) [17 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on November 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 20, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1552 K C.

145 Montague Street Realty Corp., Respondent,

against

Burke Nerresian, Appellant, -and- Claire Debrunner "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe", Undertenants.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Inez Hoyos, J.), dated June 28, 2006. The order granted landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery and to direct tenant to pay use and occupancy, and denied tenant's cross motion to dismiss the petition and/or for summary judgment.


Order affirmed without costs.

In our view, the notice served by landlord as a predicate to commencing this nonprimary-residence holdover proceeding sufficiently set forth case-specific allegations with respect to tenant's absence from the apartment and the presence of other persons, including undertenant Claire Debrunner, in the apartment (Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2204.3 [b]; see Berkeley Assocs. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [1991]; Mak v Yun Pan Lee, 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51408[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). Consequently, tenant's cross motion to dismiss the petition and/or for summary judgment was properly denied. Since tenant raises no issue with respect to the portion of the order which granted landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery and to direct tenant to pay use and occupancy, the order is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: November 20, 2007

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.