Plaintiff further alleged that at the time of the transfer, defendant's agents orally informed her that new stock certificates could not be provided because of a fire at the management building, but that her tenancy arrangement would be identical to the prior one. ![]() After receiving several notices from defendant concerning her status on the waiting list (which she attached to her motion), she accepted a transfer to apartment 4D in September 1997, and paid a $9,747 equity charge and a maintenance fee of $413.66 for the first month. According to plaintiff, she initially purchased shares of stock and entered into an occupancy agreement for apartment 7F on March 1, 1994, and some time thereafter sought a transfer to a larger apartment. In support of her motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit detailing her ownership history. The motion court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), pending determination of plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. The Notice also stated that if plaintiff failed to cure said defaults within 10 days from its service upon plaintiff, "the Cooperative will apply to the HPD for a Certificate of Eviction against you and a hearing will be scheduled at a date, time and place to be determined by HPD."īefore the 10-day cure period expired, plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking a Yellowstone injunction to stay the expiration of the cure period and to enjoin defendant from taking any action to terminate her lease, pending the determination of her action for declaratory judgment that she was the lawful occupant of apartment 4D. The Notice further alleged that she obtained possession of her apartment by "material misrepresentations of facts as to qualifications for the Apartment" and by "fraudulent means, including but not limited to, the payment of monies to individuals over and above the HPD mandated resale price." In May 2001, defendant served plaintiff with a preliminary notice of grounds for eviction (Notice) seeking to terminate her tenancy on the grounds that she violated the terms of her occupancy agreement and New York City regulations in that her application and tenancy were not approved by HPD ( see 28 RCNY 3-02 ), her name was not on the mandated waiting list ( see 28 RCNY 3-02 ), and she did not meet the eligibility requirements for the apartment ( see 28 RCNY 3-03). Under the regulatory oversight of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). Defendant and all other Mitchell-Lama cooperatives and rental housing units operate Defendant is a limited-profit housing company created pursuant to article II of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law, also known as the Mitchell-Lama Law. ![]() ![]() Plaintiff is the cooperative shareholder of apartment 4D in a residential building located at 75 Montgomery Street, owned by defendant Gouverneur Gardens Housing Corp. GOUVERNEUR GARDENS HOUSING CORP., Appellant.Ĭoncur - Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |