Opinion
No. SC 2868–14.
04-07-2015
Angel MARIN, Plaintiff, v. 21–23 BOND STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant.
Angel Marin, Yonkers, Plaintiff pro se. 21–23 N. Bond Street Associates, LLC, White Plains, Defendant pro se.
Angel Marin, Yonkers, Plaintiff pro se.
21–23 N. Bond Street Associates, LLC, White Plains, Defendant pro se.
Opinion
ADAM SEIDEN, J.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover his security deposit in the amount of $1,310.00. The parties appeared before the Court on December 5, 2014 and a trial was held.
The credible testimony at trial established that the parties entered into an EPTA regulated residential lease agreement for the premises located at 21–23 North Bond Street, Apt. 4B, Mount Vernon, New York. Plaintiff first took occupancy as a tenant on April 12, 2013, at which time he paid defendant-landlord a security deposit of $1,300.00. On or about January 29, 2014 defendant provided plaintiff with a notice for renewal of the lease. The term for the renewal lease was to commence on May 1, 2014. Plaintiff did not sign, reject or return the lease renewal. Plaintiff did, however, remain in the apartment until he vacated on August 25, 2014, at which time he was paying a monthly rent of $1,310.00. Plaintiff provided the defendant with thirty days notice prior to vacating the premises.
Plaintiff contends that since he did not accept the lease renewal he became a month to month tenant and as such, gave the defendant the requisite thirty (30) day notice. In opposition, defendant contends that since plaintiff failed to accept or reject the lease renewal such inaction creates a new one year lease and that when plaintiff vacated the premises early he forfeited his security deposit.
Pursuant to ETPR § 2503.5 where a tenant fails to timely renew an expiring lease or rental agreement offered pursuant to said section, and remains in occupancy after expiration of the lease, such lease or rental agreement may be deemed to be in effect, for the purpose of determining the rent in an overcharge proceeding, where such deeming would be appropriate pursuant to RPL § 232–c. 9 NYCRR § 2503.5(b)(2). RPL § 232–c provides that where a tenant whose term is longer than a month holds over after the expiration of such term, such holding over shall not give to the landlord the option to hold over the tenant for a new term solely by virtue of the tenant's holding over. If the landlord accepts rent for any period subsequent to the expiration of the original lease term, then, unless an agreement either express or implied is made providing otherwise, the tenancy created by the acceptance of such rent shall be a tenancy from month to month commencing on the first day after the expiration of such term. RPL § 232–c.
Thus, under the applicable statute, plaintiff's lease could not be deemed renewed solely by virtue of the fact that plaintiff failed to accept or reject the lease renewal and then held over after the expiration of the original lease term. Rather, there would have had to have been either an express or implied agreement between the parties for a new lease. Factors that could support a finding that there was an implied lease would be, i.e.: whether the landlord had notified the tenant that the lease would be deemed renewed if the tenant held over after the expiration of the lease and tenant did not object to said renewal; that the tenant did not object to paying the increased monthly renewal rent rate and did, in fact, pay said increased rent rate; and whether that the tenant remained in possession of the premises after the expiration of the lease without any indication that he would be vacating the premises within a particular period of time. See Samson Mgmt. v. Hubert, 28 Misc.3d 29 (App. Term 2nd Dept.2010) aff'd 92 AD3d 932 (2nd Dept.2012).
After hearing the testimony of the parties and judging their credibility, the Court finds that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that their was either an express or implied one year lease agreement entered into between himself and the plaintiff for the subject premises subsequent to the expiration of the original lease term.
Accordingly, judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,310.00.
The above meets the Court's statutory charge to do substantial justice between the parties.
The above constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.