512 East 11th Street HDFC v. Grimmet

• Decision Date: 10 March 1992
• Citation: 581 N.Y.S.2d 24,181 A.D.2d 488
• Parties: TH STREET HDFC, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Carl GRIMMET, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 24

581 N.Y.S.2d 24

181 A.D.2d 488

512 EAST 11TH STREET HDFC, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Carl GRIMMET, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

March 10, 1992.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, ROSENBERGER, KASSAL, RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department, New York County (Sandifer, Miller, McCooe, JJ.), entered January 2, 1991, 148 Misc.2d 971, 569 N.Y.S.2d 325, reversing an order, Civil Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 23, 1989, which granted respondent-appellant's motion to dismiss the petition, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, commenced on or about October 26, 1988, petitioner-landlord, 512 East 11th Street HDFC ("landlord"), seeks to recover the subject premises, Apartment 2D of 512 East 11th Street, New York, New York, from respondent-tenant, Carl Grimmet ("tenant"), on the ground that it is occupied pursuant to a month-to-month tenancy, for which the landlord has served a 30-day Notice to Terminate. Tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding in the Civil Court, arguing that his is a rent-stabilized tenancy and, as such, can only be terminated on grounds specified in the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.3.

The subject building, 512 East 11th Street, was previously owned by the City of New York, and managed by the tenants through the Tenants Interim Lease (TIL) program. In July 1982, the building was converted to a not-for-profit housing cooperative corporation under the General Business Law § 352-eeee and Private Housing Finance Law (PHFL), Article 11. We are in agreement with the Appellate Term that this status created a statutory exemption from the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-504, subd. a; Rent Stabilization Code §§ 2520.11[j], [l ]; Jerome Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. King, 147 Misc.2d 162, 560 N.Y.S.2d 601). Such an exemption is not subject to waiver or equitable estoppel (see, Wilson v. One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 198, 200, 510 N.Y.S.2d 603).

Our examination of this record leads us to conclude, however, that dismissal of the petition is warranted on the separate ground that the government is sufficiently " 'entwined' " with the subject premises so as to trigger constitutional due process protections requiring notice of the reasons for an eviction (157 W. 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. Hickson, 142 Misc.2d 984, 985, 542 N.Y.S.2d 900, quoting Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 N.Y.2d 152, 158, 408 N.Y.S.2d 39, 379 N.E.2d 1169). We note, for example, that the landlord's certificate of incorporation, which states its purpose as "exclusively for the ... develop[ment of] a housing project for persons of low income," imposes various restrictions on the use, sale, and transfer of shares of the housing project, and mandates that it provide housing pursuant to the definition of low income families contained in PHFL, Article 11, Section 576. The property may not be sold or otherwise disposed of without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Housing Preservation and...