Tenants challenge in New York

2012While electricity charges may not be deemed additional rent where a tenancy is rent stabilized (Related Tiffany v Faust, 191 Misc 2d 528 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]), the stipulation in this holdover proceeding did not provide that landlord would have judgment for those charges, merely that tenants would cure their breach of a substantial obligation of the lease by paying the charges in installments.

2000Tenants’ challenge to service was waived (CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; [e]; Urena v NYNEX, Inc., 223 AD2d 442 ).

1996The tenants’ claim that this statute’s provision for service by publication is unconstitutional is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and made without the notice to the Attorney-General required by Executive Law § 71 (see, Matter of A & J Produce Corp. v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N. Y., 199 AD2d 99 , lv denied 86 NY2d 701 ).

1993At best, the evidence supports solely mutual allegations of breach of contract, not fraud (see, Magar, Inc. v National Westminster Bank, 189 AD2d 580 , lv dismissed 81 NY2d 952 ).

1993At best, the evidence supports solely mutual allegations of breach of contract, not fraud (see, Magar, Inc. v National Westminster Bank, 189 AD2d 580 , lv dismissed 81 NY2d 952 ).

1981Similarly, contrary to the conclusion reached in Matter of Smith v Popolizio (supra), the CAB should be given leeway to decide whether the “required” elevator service may be given in a different form that does not result in the diminution of service.

1968Also, by reason of the several requirements established by the Court of Appeals in the Herstem case (Herstein Co. v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 4 N Y 2d 117 [1958]), it is doubtful whether the tenants can claim the benefit of a constructive eviction (see, also, Norwich Realty Affiliates v. Rappaport, 29 A D 2d 814 [1968] and Matter of Osias v. 21st Borden Corp., 29 Misc 2d 680 ).

1952In that event, the owner would be entitled to be indemnified by the tenants under the doctrine of active and passive negligence (Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414 , affd. 298 N. Y. 686 ).

1952In that event, the owner would be entitled to be indemnified by the tenants under the doctrine of active and passive negligence (Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414 , affd. 298 N. Y. 686 ).

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1950(Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 ; Gates v. Woods, 169 F. 2d 440 ; Woods v. Durr, 176 F. 2d 273 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U. S. 218, 228 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 ; Matter of Marburg v. Cole, 286 N. Y. 202, 212 .) The tenants do not challenge the administrator’s opinions, but object to their applicability, because of their claim that there was no consent either express or implied to the new or additional services provided for by the landlord.

1926In support of their contention the tenants rely upon the case of Matter of Atlas ( 217 App. Div. 38 , decided by the Appellate Division for the Fourth Department on May 19, 1926).

1926It provided that the tenants for their defense might “ make an oath that the term * * * is not expired, or that he, she or they do not hold or claim the said premises contrary to an agreement then existing between them and the person or persons applying for such summons as aforesaid; or * * * that such rent is not in arrear and unpaid * * *.” Under this defense, which virtually amounts to a general denial, the tenant was permitted to show, in Roach v. Cosine ( 9 Wend. 227 ) that the deed of the landlord was, in fact, a mortgage.