SITC Inc. v. Riverplace I Holdings LLC, 23 Misc. 3d 219 (2008)

Citation: SITC Inc. v. Riverplace I Holdings LLC, 23 Misc. 3d 219 (2008)
Parent Document: SITC Inc. v. Riverplace I Holdings LLC, 23 Misc. 3d 219 (2008)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2008-12-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6310203/sitc-inc-v-riverplace-i-holdings-llc/ ↗

Full Text

820 chars

In this case, there are certainly grounds upon which respondent could have proceeded to legally evict petitioner. Respondent could have commenced an action for nonpayment of rent. Respondent could have served petitioner with notices of nonrenewal during the Golub period based on nonprimary residence. Respondent did neither, and in fact sent petitioner offers of renewal which were never executed and returned by petitioner. However, given the court’s finding that the underlying tenancies are illusory tenancies in violation of the Rent Stabilization Law, as well as in consideration of the other issues discussed above, the court holds that restoration to possession would be improper, despite the illegality of the underlying eviction. Petitioner should be relegated to an action for monetary damages. *228Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text