Ad Misrepresented Hotel as Apartments

April 1, 1995

LVT Number: 9573

Facts: Landlord owned building that was classified under its certificate of occupancy as a Class B hotel. Certain amenities such as maid and linen service and lobby staff were required. Other features such as individual kitchens, cooking facilities, and separate utilities charges were prohibited. Rents were subject to hotel stabilization guidelines. Landlord's real estate broker advertised rooms in the building as rent-stabilized apartments in a converted hotel when in fact the hotel designation was never changed. This became an issue when landlord sued to evict tenant. The N.Y.C.

Facts: Landlord owned building that was classified under its certificate of occupancy as a Class B hotel. Certain amenities such as maid and linen service and lobby staff were required. Other features such as individual kitchens, cooking facilities, and separate utilities charges were prohibited. Rents were subject to hotel stabilization guidelines. Landlord's real estate broker advertised rooms in the building as rent-stabilized apartments in a converted hotel when in fact the hotel designation was never changed. This became an issue when landlord sued to evict tenant. The N.Y.C. Department of Consumer Affairs joined in the case on tenant's behalf to protest the ad's misrepresentation; landlord then also sued the real estate broker. The trial court dismissed the part of the case involving Consumer Affairs and the broker. The court found that the city's consumer protection law didn't cover residential tenants. Consumer Affairs appealed.

23 Realty Associates v. Teigman: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 1 (3/30/95) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Murphy, PJ, Sullivan, Wallach, Nardelli, Tom, JJ)

Topics

More like this