Tenant Occupied Hotel Room for Less Than 30 Days

March 1, 1995

LVT Number: 9509

Tenant asked the court to restore her to possession of her hotel room, claiming that landlord had illegally evicted her. Tenant argued that she'd asked landlord for a lease, but that landlord had refused. She also claimed that landlord had improperly evicted her. Landlord argued that tenant had only paid one night's rent, so it could use force to evict her after the second day. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant wasn't protected from eviction because she didn't occupy the hotel room for more than 30 days.

Tenant asked the court to restore her to possession of her hotel room, claiming that landlord had illegally evicted her. Tenant argued that she'd asked landlord for a lease, but that landlord had refused. She also claimed that landlord had improperly evicted her. Landlord argued that tenant had only paid one night's rent, so it could use force to evict her after the second day. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant wasn't protected from eviction because she didn't occupy the hotel room for more than 30 days. And landlord had the right to forcibly evict her when she didn't pay the hotel's daily rate on the second day.

Chatham v. Chelsea Hotel: NYLJ, p. 28, col. 5 (2/8/95) (Sup. Ct. NY; James, J)

Topics

More like this