1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

HOW DID THE AD1 PROFIT FROM THIS?

j0405000.jpgIn First Hudson Capital v. Seaborn , First Hudson filed a summary holdover proceeding against Ron Seaborn for charging his roommates "more than a proportional share of the rent" in violation of law -- Rent Stabilization Code section 2525.7(b).

The New York County Civil Court awarded possession to First Hudson and denied Seaborn's motion to vacate the warrant of eviction. When the Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed, Seaborn appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.

Since section 2525.7(b) didn't mention lease termination, the AD1 believed "neither the Appellate Term nor this Court may develop its own 'common-law jurisprudence' in an area as thoroughly legislated and highly regulated as the rent stabilization laws in New York City." It further observed that prior to the law's enactment, a landlord couldn't bring a case "for rent profiteering with respect to a roommate."

The appellate court went out of its way to distinguish First Hudson's case from West 148 LLC v. Yonke, which allowed a landlord to pursue an eviction because the tenant advertised the premises as a hotel and charged "roommates" twice the regulated rent. As for other cases that allowed an eviction, the AD1 said "they should not be followed."

In a dissent, Justice Saxe indicated he would have affirmed the Appellate Term's ruling "which applied the rule it has developed through its own common law jurisprudence since the enactment of [section 2525.7(b)]" that eviction could be sought when there was "egregious profiteering by the tenant."

Saxe criticized his colleagues for relying on precedent decided long before the law's enactment and accused his colleagues of "trotting out a worn and tired proposition from McKinney's Statues, a compendium of aphorisms where even a casual researcher can find some support for nearly any proposition, however dubious, sought to be advanced."

Saxe challenged the majority's assertion courts shouldn't create their own case law in this area, arguing the statute's "provisions, its nuances, its silences, and its legislative history ... are and always will be subject to the scrutiny and interpretive powers of common law judges doing what they are empowered to do - decide cases."

Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will get to decide this one.

j0284161.gif

To download a copy of the Appellate Division's Decision, please use this link:  First Hudson Capital v. Seaborn  

Categories: