From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aguilar v. Rabin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
May 15, 1985
128 Misc. 2d 428 (N.Y. App. Term 1985)

Opinion

May 15, 1985

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, Edward H. Lehner, J.

Javits, Hinckley, Rabin Engler ( Jack Rabin of counsel), for appellant.

Payne, Wood Littlejohn ( Charles G. Mills of counsel), for respondent.


Final judgment entered April 23, 1984 affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that the respondent, a subtenant residing in subdivided loft space, is not, upon the facts presented, a protected person under the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law, art 7-C, § 280 et seq.). The Loft Board rules upon which respondent relies, and which govern situations where the prime lessee of loft space seeks to recover a residential unit located therein, occupied by another ( see, Rules and Regulations Relating to Subletting, Subdivision and Assignment § [C] [5] [c]), may not be invoked to continue a loft occupant's subtenancy where, pursuant to the relevant zoning resolution and permissible "minor modifications" to that resolution, the square footage of the total floor area allows for only one residential unit. We further agree that as between petitioner prime tenant and respondent subtenant, petitioner has the superior right to possession, particularly since only petitioner took any steps to legalize the space by filing applications with the appropriate city agencies.

HUGHES, J.P., RICCOBONO and PARNESS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aguilar v. Rabin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
May 15, 1985
128 Misc. 2d 428 (N.Y. App. Term 1985)
Case details for

Aguilar v. Rabin

Case Details

Full title:NONA AGUILAR, Respondent, v. KEITH RABIN, Doing Business as ARRIBA…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: May 15, 1985

Citations

128 Misc. 2d 428 (N.Y. App. Term 1985)
494 N.Y.S.2d 609

Citing Cases

Nirco Investors v. Loft Bd.

While no floor plan is presently available to the court, it appears clear that none of these units could…

Franmar Infants Wear, Inc. v. Rios

It states: "No building containing joint living-work quarters for artists shall be subdivided into quarters…