Jalinos v. Ramkalup, 255 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Jalinos v. Ramkalup, 255 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Caldwell v. American Package Co. (nyappdiv, 2008-10-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caldwell v. American Package Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
“An owner of a de facto multiple dwelling who fails to obtain a proper certificate of occupancy or comply with the registration requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law cannot recover for rent or money for use and occupancy” (Jalinos v Ramkalup, 255 AD2d 293, 294 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Missry v. Ehlich
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
Corp. v Randall, 199 AD2d 13 [1st Dept 1993]; Jalinos v Ramkalup, 255 AD2d 293, 294 [2d Dept 1998]; see Zane v Kellner, 240 AD2d 208, 209 [1st Dept 1997]; Hornfeld v Gaare, 130 AD2d 398, 400 [1st Dept 1987].) While an IMD may qualify for an exemption from this bar, absent the IMD’s legalization for residential use according to the statutory timetable, petitioners remain precluded from recovering rent or possession.
discussed Cited "see" Commercial Hotel, Inc. v. White
N.Y. App. Term. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
While plaintiff denominated its cause of action as one for use and occupancy rather than for rent arrears, it “may not evade the effect of * * * the statutory provision by the simple expediency of labeling what is essentially a rent action, as one for use and occupancy” (Harris v Corbin, 79 Misc 2d 971 ; see, Jalinos v Ramkalup, supra; Baum Residence Corp. v Van Rosson, 206 Misc 314 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Jalinos
v.
Ramjen Ramkalup
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 2, 1998.
255 A.D.2d 293
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11560
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

—In an action, inter alia, for ejectment, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), entered September 15, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover payment for use and occupancy and awarded the plaintiff $4,290 for past use and occupancy and $715 per month for prospective use and occupancy.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which was to recover payment for use and occupancy is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that, upon searching the record, the order and judg[*294] ment is modified by adding thereto a provision which grants summary judgment to the defendants dismissing that portion of the complaint which sought to recover payment for use and occupancy; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff is the owner of a two-family home which contains three separate apartments, one of which was occupied by the defendants. The premises therefore constitute a multiple dwelling as defined by Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 (1) and (7) (see, Rosario v Koss, 26 AD2d 561, amended 26 AD2d 590). The plaintiff served the defendants with a 30-day notice of termination and subsequently commenced this action, inter alia, for ejectment. In his complaint, he conceded that the premises were being illegally used as a multiple dwelling without a proper certificate of occupancy or filed registration statement.

An owner of a de facto multiple dwelling who fails to obtain a proper certificate of occupancy or comply with the registration requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law cannot recover for rent or money for use and occupancy (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 [1] [b]; § 325 [2]; 99 Commercial St. v Llewellyn, 240 AD2d 481, 483; Hornfeld v Gaare, 130 AD2d 398, 400; Harris v Corbin, 79 Misc 2d 971). Consequently, the plaintiff is precluded from recovering payment for use and occupancy and the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of his motion for summary judgment which sought such payment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.