Skip to main content

2015 NY Slip Op 50089

Citation
2015 NY Slip Op 50089
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Source
Official source

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,754 chars
increase the rent during his tenure, and the court believes that this was intentional, the
lease agreement specifically provides for the [*15]increases in dispute.

Contrary to the contentions by the Petitioner, notwithstanding the lack of
defenses stated in the Respondent's answer, this Court will not ignore the facts, admitted
by both parties, that the Petitioner never paid any rent increases and unreasonably
delayed in the commencement of this proceeding. As stated above in the matter of Healey
v. Williams, 30 AD3d 466, 818 N.Y.S.2d 121 (App. Div., 2d Dept., 2006) despite a
marital stipulation, which included a prescription against oral modification, the trial court
findings that the parties nonetheless orally modified the agreement was supported by the
evidence in the record and affirmed.

As a general rule, a landlord is not entitled to a possessory judgment in a summary
eviction proceeding for a "stale" claim for rent—or where the landlord has failed
to institute a summary proceeding for a substantial period of time to the detriment of the
tenant. Rodriguez v. Torres, 1/22/2003 N.Y.L.J. 22, col. 1 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co.);
McLaughlin v. Timms, 11/30/84 N.Y.L.J. 4, col. 3 (App. Term 1st Dept); Airco
Alloys Division, Airco Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 AD2d 68, 430
N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th Dep't 1980); 220-55 46th Ave Owners v. National Ventures, 3/11/92
N.Y.L.J. 25, col. 6 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co.); Gabmar Realty Corp v. Titronics, 8/14/96
N.Y.L.J. 27, col. 5 (City Ct. White Plains).

To establish the defense of laches, two essential facts must be found; first, an
egregious, protracted delay and second, substantial prejudice to the party affected.
Genesee Hospital v. Kramarsky, 95 Misc 2d 609, 408 N.Y.S.2d 279 (Sup.Ct.Monroe