Opinion
No. 570305/15.
12-30-2015
42nd and 10th Associates, LLC, Petitioner–Landlord–Respondent, v. Henry IKEZI, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant, and “John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe,”, Respondents–Undertenants.
Final judgment (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2015, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Jack Stoller, J. at Civil Court.
The trial evidence showed, and it was essentially undisputed, that tenant listed his rent stabilized apartment on the Airbnb website at a nightly rental rate of $649 (plus other charges), with 4:00 PM check-in and 11:00 AM check-out times; and that during the first few weeks of his tenancy, there were several documented incidents of individuals appearing at the building, sometimes with luggage, who indicated that they were renting the apartment. This evidence supported the trial court's express factual findings that tenant “rented the subject premises out as if it was a hotel room” and engaged in profiteering (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §§ 2524.3[h], 2525.6[b] ). Thus, we reject tenant's contention that the court's determination was based on an overly broad negative inference drawn either from tenant's “relentlessly evasive” testimony on landlord's direct case or his failure to testify on his own behalf (see Arrin C. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 118 A.D.3d 485 [2014] ).
Moreover, we reject tenants' contention that landlord was required to serve a notice to cure and permit him an opportunity to cure, where, as here, tenant charged the subtenants far in excess of the legal rent and commercialized the premises from the inception of his tenancy (see Gruber v. Anastas, 100 A.D.3d 829 [2012] ; Matter of 151–155 Atl. Ave. v. Pendry, 308 A.D.2d 543 [2003] ; 51 W. 86th St. Assoc. LLC v. Fontana, 28 Misc.3d 140[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 51602[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010] ; cf. Cambridge Dev., LLC v. Staysna, 68 A.D.3d 614 [2009] ). “The integrity of the rent stabilization scheme is obviously undermined if tenants, who themselves are the beneficiaries of regulated rentals, are free to sublease their apartments at market levels and thereby collect the profits which are denied the main landlord” (Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v. Freuman, 128 Misc.2d 680, 681 [1985] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.