Diagonal Realty, LLC v. Estella, 570110/21

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 273 (Table),73 Misc.3d 137 (A)
Decision Date26 November 2021
Docket Number570110/21
Parties DIAGONAL REALTY, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v. Francisco ESTELLA, Respondent-Tenant, and Luis Reinoso and Geanette Compres, Respondents-Tenants-Appellants.

73 Misc.3d 137 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 273 (Table)

DIAGONAL REALTY, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,
v.
Francisco ESTELLA, Respondent-Tenant,
and
Luis Reinoso and Geanette Compres, Respondents-Tenants-Appellants.

570110/21

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, First Department.

Decided on November 26, 2021


Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth J. Yalin Tao, J.), dated April 14, 2021, reversed, with $10 costs, and tenants’ motion granted to the extent of awarding them summary judgment dismissing the petition and partial summary judgment on the counterclaims on the issue of liability, and the matter remanded to Civil Court for an assessment to determine the amount of the overcharge, as well as the treble damages to be awarded thereon, and the reasonable value of the attorneys’ fees due tenants. Appeal from order (same court and Judge), dated August 12, 2020 dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the order on reargument.

While the motion court in its April 14, 2021 order purported to deny tenants’ motion for reargument, the merits of the motion were addressed and the court, in effect, granted reargument, even though it ultimately adhered to its original determination. Therefore, the April 14, 2021 order is appealable (see Jackson v Leung , 99 AD3d 489, 490 [2012] ; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v King , 304 AD2d 390 [2003] ).

Pursuant to rent reduction orders issued in 1989 and 1991, DHCR found that the prior owner failed to provide certain required services and reduced the legal regulated rent (which was then less than $300 per month) for the subject stabilized premises. This order was a continuing obligation upon the owner and its successors (see Matter of Cintron v Calogero , 15 NY3d 347 [2010] ; Jenkins v Fieldbridge Assoc., LLC , 65 AD3d 169, 172-173 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 855 [2009] ) and barred landlord from collecting any further increases in rent including vacancy increases and increases for individual apartment improvements "until the DHCR finds that all required services are being provided and a rent restoration order is issued authorizing the owner to charge and collect the actual legal regulated rent" ( Atsiki Realty LLC v Munoz , 48 Misc 3d 33 [App Term, 1st Dept 2015] ; see PWV...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT