Legal Opinion

New York City Housing Authority v. Harvell

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided July 9, 2001PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order dated May 31, 2000 affirmed, with $10 costs.

*296While it has been stated that a termination notice is not generally required to maintain an illegal use proceeding, since such a proceeding is founded upon statutory authority and not the termination of a lease (RPAPL 711 [5]; 715 [1]; Real Property Law § 231 [1]; see Murphy v Relaxation Plus Commodore, 83 Misc 2d 838), this rule gives way where a governing regulatory scheme requires preeviction notice (see, e.g., 2312-2316 Realty Corp. v Font, 140 Misc 2d 901; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3 [d]; § 2524.2 [c]…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Relaxation Plus Commodore, Ltd.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1975
  2. Escalera v. New York Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
  3. 2312-2316 Realty Corp. v. FontCivil Court of the City of New York · 1988

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. 2475 Hughes Ave. Realty Corp. v. GonzalezCivil Court of the City of New York · 2010
  2. NYC Housing & Development, LLC v. AriasCivil Court of the City of New York · 2003
  3. Gur Assoc. LLC v. Convenience on Eight Corp., Civil Court Of The City Of New York, New York County2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API