ARIEL ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Brown

• Decision Date: 27 April 2000
• Citation: 706 N.Y.S.2d 116,271 A.D.2d 369
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: ARIEL ASSOCIATES, L. L. C., Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>HEATHER BROWN et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Respondents.

271 A.D.2d 369

706 N.Y.S.2d 116

ARIEL ASSOCIATES, L. L. C., Appellant-Respondent,

v.HEATHER BROWN et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Respondents.

Decided April 27, 2000.

Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Petitioner's claim that respondents should be evicted for profiteering was properly rejected on the ground that the summer subletting complained of did not rise to a level of profiteering warranting termination of respondents' 20-year tenancy without giving them an opportunity to cure (see, Alverjan Holding Corp. v Weiss, NYLJ, May 19, 1994, at 27, col 4, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, 128 Misc 2d 680). Indeed, in response to a notice to cure that petitioner initially deemed necessary to serve but now claims was not, respondents promptly refunded all sums to the subtenants and notified petitioner of the cure prior to the commencement of holdover proceedings (see, Husda Realty Corp. v Padien, 136 Misc 2d 92, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman, supra).