From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 16, 2021
191 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

13149-13149A Index No. 150594/19 Case No. 2020-02359 2020-02410

02-16-2021

Deborah MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHELSEA HOTEL OWNER, LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents

Leon I. Behar, P.C., New York (Mitchell P. Heaney of counsel) for appellants. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York (Jennifer S. Recine of counsel), for Chelsea Hotel Owners, LLC, Richard Born and Chelsea Hotel F&B LLC, respondents. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claibourne Henry of counsel), for New York City Department of Buildings, respondent.


Leon I. Behar, P.C., New York (Mitchell P. Heaney of counsel) for appellants.

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York (Jennifer S. Recine of counsel), for Chelsea Hotel Owners, LLC, Richard Born and Chelsea Hotel F&B LLC, respondents.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claibourne Henry of counsel), for New York City Department of Buildings, respondent.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Webber, Oing, Kennedy, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn J. Kotler, J.), entered May 21, 2020, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Chelsea Hotel F&B, and Richard Born's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 18, 2019, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

The court correctly found that the cause of action for an order requiring defendant owners of the subject building to have the building's certificate of occupancy modified to conform to a purported reclassification order should, in the first instance, be raised before the appropriate agency. Moreover, even if plaintiffs could seek the requested injunctive relief without first having exhausted their administrative remedies, they would not be entitled to summary judgment on this record, which does not contain a final reclassification order and does not show that the reclassification orders on which plaintiffs rely applied to the entire building.


Summaries of

Martin v. Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 16, 2021
191 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Martin v. Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Deborah Martin, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Chelsea Hotel Owner…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 16, 2021

Citations

191 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1003
138 N.Y.S.3d 336

Citing Cases

Martin v. La Rocca

Petitioners have not identified how they are harmed by use of the building as a transient use hotel (see…

Martin v. La Rocca

Moreover, even if plaintiffs could seek the requested injunctive relief without first having exhausted their…