601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- Citation
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- Parent Document
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-02-09
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
- 601 West 160 Realty Corp. v. Henry, 183 Misc. 2d 666 (2000)
Full Text
793 charsThe novel question presented is: whether respondent Henry can interpose the statutory defense of retaliatory eviction pursuant to Real Property Law § 223-b in the context of a nonpayment proceeding wherein respondent has timely paid the rent demanded continuously since at least 1997, and is not utilizing the statutory defense as a shield to be relieved of the obligation to pay rent? Framing the issue in another way, the question becomes: was it the intent of the Legislature, in limiting the retaliatory eviction defense to holdover proceedings, to deny to the respondent herein, an active and long-term president of a proactive tenants’ association, the protection of Real Property Law § 223-b based on the type of summary proceeding chosen by the landlord to harass and evict the tenant?