September 2024 Insights

By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor

Courts and the DHCR recently addressed recurring controversies otherwise highlighted in discussions of legislative amendments, agency rules, and news stories.

Tenant responsibility for fires caused by e-bike batteries improperly maintained in apartment buildings was addressed by a Bronx Court in Forest House, LLC v. Santos (LVT #33386), where the court ordered a tenant to pay the landlord’s insurance deductible after her e-bike caught fire in her apartment and she placed the burning bicycle in the hallway, causing smoke and water damage to several floors. The tenant had ignored a lease requirement that bicycles be kept in a designated bike room. The court also ordered the tenant to pay the landlord’s attorney’s fees.

In Columbus 69th LLC v. DeDominguez (LVT #33385), a Manhattan court ruled that a landlord could pursue enforcement of Local Law 18 against Airbnb where a tenant used her apartment for short-term rentals through the short-term rental platform, which had failed to verify the tenant’s use of its service, as required by the law. Despite Airbnb’s objections, the landlord obtained an injunction and was permitted to proceed with its claim for payment reimbursement of NYC Fire Code violations resulting from the short-term occupancies. The court held that a private right of action to enforce the law “could be fairly implied.”

In a long-pending rent overcharge proceeding involving a claim of fraudulent apartment deregulation, the DHCR rejected the tenant’s claim on appeal that rent stabilization law amendments concerning fraudulent deregulation added in 2023 and 2024 should be applied to the case, noting that they were not applicable retroactively. See Matter of Gomes (LVT #33360).

Procedural hitches in summary nonpayment eviction proceedings came up in several recent cases. In 83-40 Britton Ave LLC v. Sultana (LVT #33387), a Queens court reiterated a frequent Second Department ruling that a petitioner in a summary eviction proceeding cannot be awarded an independent money judgment without a possessory judgment because the purpose of a summary proceeding is to recover possession. In this case, a tenant had moved out shortly before trial commenced and after the parties had appeared a number of times in the long-pending proceeding. The court dismissed the case because no possessory judgment could be awarded at that point.

In two recent cases, the Appellate Term, Second Department upheld the dismissal of nonpayment proceedings against rent-stabilized tenants who had no current leases and who had not been paying rent. As held by the court, a nonpayment proceeding can stand only when there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and there has been a default in the payment of rent under an agreement by which the premises are held. See Reno Capital, LLC v. Alvillar (LVT #33381); 41 Kew Gardens Rd. Assoc. LLC. v. Munarov (LVT #33388).