223-15 Realty Corp. v. Basse, et al., — Misc.3d –, — NYS2d –, 2012 NY Slip Op 22335 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co. 2012).
David won Loft Law coverage for four sets of tenants under the 2010 amendments and beat back the landlord’s attempt to evict the tenants. The landlord contended that the building could not be covered under the law because it could not be legalized. David showed that, not only was the building capable of being legalized, but he successfully argued legalization was separate from coverage under the law. The court dismissed the landlord’s ejectment action and referred the legalization issues to the Loft Board.
167 North Ninth Street Corp. v. Helfand, 33 Misc.3d 518, 928 NYS2d 922 (Civ.Ct. NY Co. 2011).
In this case, relying on 18th-century common law precedent, David convinced the court to find that a former building superintendent was, as a matter of a law, a tenant. As a mere employee, the client would have had no defense to eviction but, as a tenant, he could then claim protection under the Loft Law, making this a very significant victory for David’s client.
Acevedo v. Piano Building LLC, 70 AD3d 124, 891 NYS2d 41 (App.Div. 1st Dep’t 2009).
In this landmark decision, David established that loft units “deregulated” under the Loft Law come under the protection of the Rent Stabilization Law when the owner re-rents them for residential purposes if they are located in buildings with six or more residential units.
David won summary judgment finding a building in the Meat Packing District covered by the Loft Law, giving his client statutory protection from eviction and making him eligible for a potentially substantial rent overcharge award. David also successfully defended the lower court decision on appeal.
Tan Holding Corp. v. Eklund, 33 AD3d 487, 823 NYS2d 31 (1st Dep’t 2006).
Forrester v. American Package Co., Inc., 55 AD3d 787, 869 NYS2d 547 (2d Dep’t 2008).
American Package Co., Inc. v. Kocik, 55 AD3d 762, 866 NYS2d 284 (2d Dep’t 2008).
Sima Realty LLC v. Philips, 282 AD2d 394, 724 NYS2d 51 (1st Dep’t 2001).
In these four cases, David, representing residential loft tenants, defeated the landlord’s claim for rent or “use and occupancy” because the building lacked a proper certificate of occupancy.
545 Eighth Avenue Associates, LP v. Shanaman, 12 Misc.3d 66, 819 NYS2d 813 (App.Term 1st Dep’t 2006).
In a precedent setting case, David established that the “illusory tenancy” doctrine applies to apartments covered by the Loft Law, enabling his clients, the victims of a rent overcharge scheme by the prime tenants, to successfully argue that they were the lawful regulated tenants.
VVV Partnership v. Moran, 10 Misc.3d 130A, 2005 NY Slip Op. 51958U (App.Term 1st Dep’t 2005).
182 Fifth Avenue, LLC v. Design Development Concepts, Inc., 300 AD2d 198, 751 NYS2d 739 (1st Dep’t 2002) .
In these two cases, David established that tenants of lofts formerly covered by the Loft Law are protected by rent stabilization despite the landlord’s “buy out” of the prior tenant’s rights and a nominally “commercial” lease.
Wolinsky v. Kee Yip Realty, Inc., 2 NY3d 487, 779 NYS2d 812 (2004).
David represented the tenants in this precedent setting case from the Court of Appeals establishing parameters loft tenants’ rights under rent stabilization.
Miller v. Margab Realty, LLC, NYLJ, Apr. 11, 2001, p. 19, col. 2 (Sup.Ct. NY Co.).
David won rent stabilization protection for the tenants and eventually negotiated a $1.4 million “buy out” for his clients.
Tan Holding Corp. v. Wallace, 187 Misc.2d 687, 724 NYS2d 260 (App.Term 1st Dep’t 2001).
David secured the first appellate decision holding that tenants of residential lofts not subject to the Loft Law could be protected by rent stabilization.
Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Albertini, 245 AD2d 166, 665 NYS2d 893 (1st Dep’t 1997).
David successfully argued that residential loft tenancies could be subject to rent stabilization, resulting in settlement that garnered his client a lifetime lease.
125 Church Street Development Co. v. Grassfield, 170 Misc.2d 1, 648 NYS2d 515 (Civ.Ct. NY Co. 1996) .
David obtained right of subtenant to conduct depositions of the “prime tenant” and owner of building covered by the Loft Law, providing leverage for eventual $150,000 settlement.