2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco, 52 A.D.3d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco, 52 A.D.3d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …it is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …the policies underlying the rent stabilization laws are generally better served by holding out to a tenant the opportunity usually afforded in a nonpayment proceeding to cure the breach of his rent obligations at p. 378 ✓
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 222 East 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan So (nyappterm, 2017-01-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 222 East 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan So
N.Y. App. Term. · 2017 · confidence medium
“It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases” (2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008] [citations omitted]; see also Dino Realty Corp. v Khan, 46 Misc 3d 71, 72 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014] [stating that “(t)he law abhors the forfeiture of leases” and that “it is the policy of (New York State) to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants” (citations omitted)]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v. Pickett (4×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, the tenant has paid the rental arrears for the unit and the landlord's costs for the underlying proceeding ( see Parkchester , 271 AD2d at 273 ), and the record shows that the delays in payment were, to a certain extent, attributable to others, including the landlord ( see 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco , 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dino Realty Corp. v. Khan
N.Y. App. Term. · 2014 · confidence medium
Lake Anne Realty Corp. v Sibley, 154 AD2d 349, 351 [1989]), and it is the policy of this state to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants (see e.g. 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [2008]; Sharp v Norwood, 223 AD2d 6, 11 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 1068 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Einhorn v. McCloud
N.Y. App. Term. · 2010 · confidence medium
As the Appellate Division has stated, “[a]n indigent tenant who resides in an apartment for many years should not be evicted where [he] has made diligent efforts to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, only to be stymied by events beyond [his] control” (2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [2008]; cf. Chelsea 19 Assoc. v James, 67 AD3d 601 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" Harvey 1390 LLC v. Bodenheim
N.Y. App. Term. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
The tenants’ apparent difficulty in obtaining funds did not constitute “good cause” required to vacate the warrant of eviction (RPAPL 749 [3]; see Chelsea 19 Assoc. v James, 67 AD3d 601 [2009]), at least on this record which contains no indication that tenants made timely efforts to comply with the monetary terms of the settlement agreement, “only to be stymied by events beyond [their] control” (cf. 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 431 Audubon LLC v. Jiminian
N.Y. App. Term. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
In the particular circumstances of this case, including the long-term (36-year) stabilized tenancy, the presence of minor children in the apartment ( see 1240 Sheva Realty Assoc., LLC v Ramos , 51 Misc 3d 143 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50692[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]), the indigent tenant's in-court showing that she possessed the full rent arrears then due landlord and, significantly, the documentary proof showing that, after a bureaucratic delay, tenant's share of the rent has been prospectively reduced by the FHEPS program from $653.68 to $253.93, an affordable sum relative to her income, we fa…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 361 West 121st Housing Dev. Fund Corp. v. Frazier
N.Y. App. Term. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Particularly in housing matters where a forfeiture of shelter is implicated, a default of this nature should be “measured against the harsh result[s] which would obtain upon literal enforcement of the default pro vision in the stipulation” (Bank of N.Y. v Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]; see also 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
2246 Holding Corp.
v.
Maria Jimenez Nolasco
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 19, 2008.
52 A.D.3d 377
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered June 1, 2007, which reversed an order of Civil Court, New York County (Louis Villella, J.), entered October 10, 2006, that had granted respondent’s motion to stay execution of a warrant of eviction, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the Civil Court order reinstated to the extent of staying execution of the warrant for 60 days from service of a copy of this order, to permit payment of all outstanding arrears.

Respondent was a 30-year tenant in a building owned by petitioner, who commenced this summary holdover proceeding for possession of the apartment on the basis of chronic nonpayment of rent. In March 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation, so ordered by the court, settling the proceeding. The stipulation required respondent, inter alia, to pay the arrears and $1,000 in legal fees by the following month, with “time ... of the essence for payment.” The agreement also noted that respondent had provided petitioner with an approval letter from the Human Resources Administration (HRA) authorizing payment of the arrears, and permitted a 10-day delay in payment, if necessary, for HRA to issue a check.

In May 2006, respondent proffered her portion of the arrears, which petitioner refused. In June, she obtained an order staying execution of a warrant of eviction through the 23rd of the month, after HRA failed to issue a check for the arrears. The court also awarded petitioner additional legal fees. In July respondent obtained another stay of execution until the end of August, on the same ground. HRA finally issued the check at the end of August, but petitioner refused to accept it on the ground that it was untimely.

In October 2006, respondent obtained yet another stay through the end of November for the payment of the legal fees assessed by the court. Civil Court held that this 30-year[*378] resident’s defaults were largely the result of HRA’s delay in issuing benefits, which she had sought early in the proceedings, and respondent was able to produce her portion of the arrears prior to the August due date mandated by the court’s July order. On petitioner’s appeal, Appellate Term reversed on the ground that respondent had repeatedly failed to comply with the “time is of the essence” payment terms of the settlement agreement.

It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases (Sharp v Norwood, 223 AD2d 6, 11 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 1068 [1997]). The policies underlying the rent stabilization laws are generally better served by holding out to a tenant the opportunity usually afforded in a nonpayment proceeding to cure the breach of his rent obligations (Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank, 107 Misc 2d 318, 323 [App Term 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]).

Respondent’s multiple defaults were largely the result of a delay in payment by HRA. Petitioner was aware, at the time of the settlement, that a portion of the amount due was to be paid by HRA. An indigent tenant who resides in an apartment for many years should not be evicted where she has made diligent efforts to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, only to be stymied by events beyond her control. Under these circumstances, the decision of the housing court judge was appropriate. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams and Renwick, JJ. [See 15 Misc 3d 142(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51099(U).]