From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gallin v. Mendelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1989
151 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 1, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Defendants-appellants are the owners of an apartment building located at 860 Grand Concourse in The Bronx, and the landlord of 10 apartments occupied by the plaintiffs-respondents. Each of the plaintiffs is a professional, either doctor, lawyer or dentist, and utilizes his respective apartment for the practice of his or her profession. After the landlord served a termination notice on two of the plaintiffs herein stating that their respective leases would be terminated on the expiration date, despite renewal options in the leases, this action for declaratory judgment was commenced.

Plaintiffs-respondents tenants seek a judgment declaring that they are entitled to the protection of the rent stabilization laws and are thus entitled to renewal leases. Many of the leases provide for rent increases in accordance with rent stabilization guidelines. Some of the leases provide for professional use; others state they are for residential purposes only.

The motion court denied the landlord's motion for summary judgment, stating that there were issues of fact. We disagree. On the record before us, it appears that not one of the apartments in issue contains a full kitchen. All of the tenants maintain telephone directory listings for their professional addresses at the subject premises, and some list their residential addresses elsewhere. The record also establishes that certain of the tenants display professional signs listing their names and practices at the premises. Also, the building superintendent submitted an affidavit stating that to his knowledge none of the plaintiffs ever stayed overnight. Premises demonstrated to be used primarily for professional purposes are not entitled to the protection of the rent stabilization laws. (Coronet Props. Co. v Jennie Co. Film Prods., 121 Misc.2d 873 [Civ Ct, N Y County 1983].)

Under the circumstances, there is no genuine issue of material fact. (Shaw v. Time-Life Records, 38 N.Y.2d 201.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Gallin v. Mendelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1989
151 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Gallin v. Mendelson

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN GALLIN et al., Respondents, v. JACK MENDELSON et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

Ansonia Associates v. Bozza [1st Dept 1999

However, the "privilege" afforded to tenant should not be read as authorizing the creation of commercial…

Ansonia Assoc. v. Bozza

The rent stabilization laws protect premises which are utilized primarily for residential purposes, not…