Midboro Management v. Epperson
| Decision Date | 22 July 1963 |
| Citation | 242 N.Y.S.2d 160,39 Misc.2d 908 |
| Parties | MIDBORO MANAGEMENT, etc., Landlord, v. Virginia A. EPPERSON, Tenant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Irving L. Kalish, New York City, for landlord.
J. M. Fishback, New York City, for tenant, Epperson.
This is a summary nonpayment proceeding wherein landlord seeks to evict the tenant on the latter's alleged failure and refusal to pay rent for the months of May and June, 1963 and additional rent as expenses in the nature of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by it in a prior holdover proceeding litigated between the parties.
The provision in the lease between landlord's predecessor in interest and the tenant herein, which expired on December 31, 1948 and which landlord invoked to recover its said attorney's fees as additional rent, reads as follows:
It appears that on June 20, 1962 landlord instituted holdover proceedings against the tenant, said proceeding being predicated on the tenant's wilful violation of an obligation of her tenancy. A trial of the issues raised by the tenant's general denial resulted in a dismissal of landlord's petition by the trial court and a final order rendered in her favor. Landlord appealed said determination and on April 4, 1963 the Appellate Term reversed the final order of the trial court and directed a final order in favor of the landlord, tenant's eviction being stayed on conditions with which she complied.
The order and decision of the appellate court precludes this court from considering the various contentions raised by the tenant in this proceeding with respect to the landlord's good faith and its right to institute such holdover proceeding, the same having been implicitly and finally disposed of by the order and decision of said appellate court.
There can be no question but that the terms and conditions of the written lease (supra), except as to rental and duration, carried over into the so-called 'statutory tenancy', a tenancy which is not the conventional relationship of landlord and tenant but one which is created by statute and to which certain important, newly created, rights and obligations attach solely by virtue of the statute.
One of the most important newly created rights of the statutory tenant is that 'so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent, she may not be evicted except on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 52 of the Regulations * * *.' Landlord herein seeks to evict the tenant because of her refusal to pay the 'additional rent', as alleged in its petition, incurred by it as expenses in the nature of attorney's fees in a prior holdover proceeding. In this court's opinion, this is clearly repugnant to, and violates, the spirit and intent of the Legislature when it enacted the Emergency Rent Laws and this term and condition should not be so interpreted and should not be projected into the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seventy-Second St. Properties, Inc. v. Woods
...entitling the Landlord to recover such fee in a summary proceeding. In discussing the issue in Midboro Management, etc. v. Epperson, 39 Misc.2d 908, p. 911, 242 N.Y.S.2d 160, p. 163, the Court stated, 'Should the application of this principle be broadened so as to include 'additional rent' ......
-
Perry Gault Management Co., Inc. v. Perhaes
...80 N.Y.S.2d 44; See River View Associates v. Sheraton Corp., 33 A.D.2d 187, 191, 306 N.Y.S.2d 153, 157; But see Midboro Management v. Epperson, 39 Misc.2d 908, 242 N.Y.S.2d 160. The Barrow case, however, arose under the Emergency Business Space Rent Control statute, Section 8551 et seq. Unc......
-
Morningside Studios, Inc. v. Lucille Hotel Corp.
...of Ross v. Novod, 163 N.Y.S.2d 787 (Sup., App.T., 1st Dept., 1957). The case at bar should be distinguished from Midboro Management v. Epperson, 39 Misc.2d 908, 242 N.Y.S.2d 160 (Civil Ct., N.Y.Co., 1963), which involved rent-controlled residential premises and, in any event, is not binding......
- People v. Luongo