The appeal clause upheld the lower court`s decision that the landlord could charge reasonable rent, but that such a rent increase would not be unscrupulous, since it would be defined as rents exceeding the normal rents of comparable apartments during the period of their occupancy. The appeal clause made it clear that the obligation to offer renewal leases applies to individuals who “lease from developers.” (Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc.2d, above, p. 376, 713 N.Y.S.2d 109.) In this case, the developer sold all the units in 1998, so the defendants are not non-buyer tenants here. (See Pembroke Square Associates v. Coppola, N.Y.L.J., May 5, 1999, p. 32, col. 6.) In the present case, the court limited the scope of the General Enterprise Act 352-eeee exclusively to tenants who had rented their apartments after the date of entry into force, but before the actual conversion. As already mentioned, the last conversion plan for this procedure was completed in 1985. The Appeal Division confirmed this and concluded that the parties` preliminary lease and purchase agreement did not contain cross-default provisions, which are the result of Realty Corp.c.
Barbosa, 198 A.D.2d 89, 603 N.Y.S.2d 841. The factual situation in Lebanon is very different from the facts it contains. Please note: All apartment rentals are subject to change without notice and are not guaranteed. Classified apartments are rented to qualified tenants on a first-come, first-served basis. The New York Condominium Lease Agreement Form is a legal document created between the owner of a condominium and a selected tenant. The document contains a wording that defines the conditions of rental of the condominium. This document could be similar to the terms of a housing contract, but it also addresses issues specific to renting a condominium, including the landlord`s responsibility to ensure that the tenant joins the municipality`s landlords` association and the landlord`s obligation to make monthly payments as if they were living there themselves. The purpose of this particular tenancy document is to clarify the terms of the lease with respect to the condominium and its community. The document must be read in its entirety. It is not disputed that condominiums leased to tenants under interim leases after the plan has been accepted for submission and before the plan has been declared effective may be removed from the premises and will not be entitled to additional occupancy if they do not purchase (see Park West Village Associates v. Leonard, N.Y.L.J., 6 December 1995, p.
32, column 1 (App. Term 1st department.)). There is, of course, no doubt that these defendants are not qualified under existing case law and that they are non-buyer tenants who are entitled to protection under the above-mentioned sections of the General Enterprise Law. The factual situation of each of these respondents is different from all the cases mentioned by the respondents in their pleadings. The respondent`s second affirmative defence, alleging that the applicant agreed to offer the respondents a one-year lease, is unconvincing and is not supported. Paragraph B of the lease clearly provides that the tenant does not have the right to continue to occupy or the right to renew the lease after the end of the lease. Thus, this affirmative defense is affected in law and in construction. The respondents also refer to Libani v. Concorde et Cie, 269 A.D.2d 213, 703 N.Y.S.2d 36. In this case, it was a provisional lease during the conversion phase of the condominium. The tenants switched from a rent-stabilized apartment to a condominium and signed a preliminary lease and purchase agreement in which they agreed to purchase the unit when the Attorney General declared the plan effective. The lower court held that one of the amendments to the condominium plan was that, if the plan was declared in effect, any original tenant who did not purchase an empty dwelling and who were those tenants would not be evicted because he had not purchased the vacant apartment or was based on the expiry of his lease or tenancy.
More importantly, the lower court also ruled that the interim lease that the tenants had signed did not contain a cross-default clause in their purchase agreement. Thus, the default provision contained in the purchase agreement did not constitute a defect in the provisional lease, since no similar provision was mentioned in that lease. * Two months free rental for all new 2 year leases. Limited time offer. In each of the condominium leases pending before the court, a paragraph 57 appears that clearly informs the tenant of the status he will have at the end of the lease term: after accepting each plan, Parkchester owned Apts. Co. continued condominium units that were not sold to buyers. Some of the unsold dwellings were occupied by rent-stabilized or rent-controlled tenants. Other units were vacant at the time the plans were adopted or subsequently became vacant and were leased from time to time under market-based leases. The defendants seek the dismissal of the six (6) immediate detention proceedings on the ground that this procedure cannot be maintained under Article 352-eeee of the General Economic Law (Martin Law).
The applicant requested a summary judgment in his favour and a statement that the co-ownership leases between the parties had expired and that their leases had been terminated; in addition, issuing possession judgments and deportation orders; the defendant`s first defence, invoked on Article 352-eeee of general commercial law, and the second defence of the opponents of the strike; The first affirmative defence, alleging that that action was brought in retaliation for the tenants who committed breaches of the premises; the removal of the second affirmative defence alleging that the applicant had agreed to offer the defendants a one-year lease; and the first counterclaim for alleged defects in the premises. The dismissal of those applications on the grounds invoked by the defendants would give them a tenancy of indefinite duration, exempt from the restrictions laid down in the lease itself. Clearly, the legislator never wanted such leases to remain in effect in the long term. (See 58 W. 58th St. Tenant Assoc. v. 58 W.
58th St. Associates, 126 Misc.2d 500, 482 N.Y.S.2d 952). Contrary to the defendants` submissions, the referring court concludes that the article of the Martin Law which has been the subject of research has no application to the present matters. None of the respondents clearly indicated that they resided in Parkchester Apts. Co. when the plan was finally declared effective by the Attorney General`s Office. These apartments are condominiums that the applicant rented to individuals for a limited period of time. Since none of these entities are regulated by the State, they are clearly open market apartments that allow the petitioner to rent them on an individual basis and for the period agreed by the parties. None of these respondents could reasonably have expected their tenancy to be extended in the long term.
A reasonable approach requires the following conclusion: respondents were fully aware that their respective leases contained an expiry clause; In addition, the applicant stressed in his lease that there is no legal obligation to renew his leases. The respondents` view that these condominium leases could somehow fall within the scope of GBL 352-eeee and thus provide them with legal protection is contrary to common sense and a realistic view of the nature and understanding of their written agreements. These written leases were nothing more than annual rents, which were liable to be extended if certain conditions were met, and by the applicant at will. The developer of the condominium conversion completed the north condominium in the 1970s and the south condominium in the 1980s and sold 100% of its capital or interest in the unsold individual condominiums to Parkchester Preservation Co., L.P. in accordance with the July 1, 1998 document. None of the Fair Trade Co-ownership Leases contained in this document have been renewed. They have not been renewed for several years. .