Jalinos v. Ramkalup
| Decision Date | 02 November 1998 |
| Citation | 255 A.D.2d 293,679 N.Y.S.2d 419 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9524 George JALINOS, Respondent, v. Ramjen RAMKALUP, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Augustine A. Diji, Brooklyn, for Appellants.
Fromme Schwartz Newman & Cornicello, L.L.P., New York (Anthony J. Cornicello and David B. Tendler of counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for ejectment, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), entered September 15, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover payment for use and occupancy and awarded the plaintiff $4,290 for past use and occupancy and $715 per month for prospective use and occupancy.
ORDERED that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff is the owner of a two-family home which contains three separate apartments, one of which was occupied by the defendants. The premises therefore constitute a multiple dwelling as defined by Multiple Dwelling Law § 4(1) and (7) (see, Rosario v. Koss, 26 A.D.2d 561, 271 N.Y.S.2d 77, amended 26 A.D.2d 590, 272 N.Y.S.2d 962). The plaintiff served the defendants with a 30-day notice of termination and subsequently commenced this action, inter alia, for ejectment. In his complaint, he conceded that the premises were being illegally used as a multiple dwelling without a proper certificate of occupancy or filed registration statement.
An owner of a de facto multiple dwelling who fails to obtain a proper certificate of occupancy or comply with the registration requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law cannot recover for rent or money for use and occupancy (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 302[1][b]; § 325[2]; 99 Commercial St. v. Llewellyn, 240 A.D.2d 481, 483, 658 N.Y.S.2d 130; Hornfeld v. Gaare, 130...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Momart Disc. Store Ltd. v. Rossi
...Props., Inc. v. A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 424, 425 (2nd Dept. 2009), Caldwell, supra, 57 A.D.3d at 24, Jalinos v. Ramkalup, 255 A.D.2d 293, 294 (2nd Dept. 1998), 99 Commercial Street v. Llewellyn, 240 A.D.2d 481, 482-483 (2nd Dept. 1997),2 Fields v. Rohinsky, 39 Misc.3d 142(A) (A......
-
Malden v. Wykoff S.P., LLC
...under Multiple Dwelling Law § 4(1) and (7), even though the former tenants had recently vacated unit 3B (see Jalinos v. Ramkalup, 255 A.D.2d 293, 294, 679 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; Rosario v. Koss, 26 A.D.2d 561, 561–562, 271 N.Y.S.2d 77, amended 26 A.D.2d 590, 272 N.Y.S.2d 962 ). An owner of a de fac......
-
Parkchester Pres. Co. v. Vargas
...recovering rent from tenants of a multiple dwelling which lacks a valid certificate of occupancy"]; accord Jalinos v. Ramkalup , 255 A.D.2d 293, 294, 679 N.Y.S.2d 419 [2d Dept. 1998] ).CONCLUSIONBased on the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of Defendant Janeth Vargas, and it is herebyORD......
-
Kaloedas v. Garcia
...145 (2d Dept. 2009) ; Caldwell v. American Package Co., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 15, 866 N.Y.S.2d 275 (2d Dept. 2008) ; Jalinos v. Ramkalup, 255 A.D.2d 293, 679 N.Y.S.2d 419 (2d Dept. 1998).Petitioner next argued the rent forfeiture provision of the statute may not be invoked when "the absence of th......