16 Apt. Assoc., Inc. v Lewis
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 19, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2008-287 W C.
16 Apartment Associates, Inc., Respondent,
against
Yvonne Lewis, Appellant.
Appeal from a final judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (JoAnn
Friia, J.), entered January 16, 2008. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlord
possession and the principal sum of $5,617.74 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
Final judgment reversed with $30 costs and petition dismissed.
Claiming that it was not required to accept third-party checks in payment of the rent, landlord
repeatedly rejected tenders of the monthly rent made on behalf of the rent-stabilized tenant by the
Westchester County Department of Social Services (DSS) and by Westchester Residential
Opportunities (WRO), and then commenced this
nonpayment proceeding. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court agreed with landlord's
contention and awarded a final judgment in landlord's favor.
On an appeal in a previous proceeding between the parties (16 Apt. Assoc., Inc. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 40 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]), this court ruled that landlord was not within its rights in refusing to accept the third-party checks offered on tenant's behalf by DSS and WRO. As there has been no change in circumstances, we find that landlord failed to establish a default in rent, and this nonpayment proceeding could not be maintained (RPAPL 711 [2]; see Ridgefield Apts. Assn. v Krakower, NYLJ, June 13, 1991 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Janes v Paddell, 74 Misc 409, 416 [App Term 1911]; Aimco Columbus Ave. v Bivou Rest. Corp., 9 Misc 3d 1114[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51544[U] [2005]; Matter of Albany v White, 46 [*2]Misc 2d 915 [1965]). Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the petition dismissed.
Rudolph, P.J., and Tanenbaum, J., concur.
Scheinkman, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: June 19, 2009
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.