AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a holdover proceeding commenced around October 26, 1988, in which the petitioner-landlord, 512 East 11th Street HDFC, sought to recover possession of Apartment 2D from respondent-tenant, Carl Grimmet. The landlord asserted that the tenancy was month-to-month and served a 30-day Notice to Terminate. The tenant moved to dismiss, contending that his tenancy was rent-stabilized and could only be terminated on grounds specified in the Rent Stabilization Code. The building had previously been owned by the City of New York and managed under the Tenants Interim Lease program before converting to a not-for-profit housing cooperative corporation under state law. The Appellate Term had ruled on the status of the tenancy and related exemptions under rent stabilization law.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the tenancy was exempt from the Rent Stabilization Law due to the building's status as a not-for-profit housing cooperative corporation.
  2. Whether the government’s significant involvement with the premises triggers constitutional due process protections requiring notice of the reasons for eviction.
  3. Whether the landlord’s failure to allege a cause for eviction, beyond mere expiration of the lease, warranted dismissal of the petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent-Tenant's Arguments

  • The tenancy is rent-stabilized and thus can only be terminated on grounds specified in the Rent Stabilization Code.
  • The landlord’s 30-day Notice to Terminate is insufficient because it does not comply with rent stabilization protections.

Petitioner-Landlord's Position

  • The tenancy is month-to-month and not subject to rent stabilization protections due to the building’s conversion to a not-for-profit housing cooperative.
  • Served a proper 30-day Notice to Terminate based on this status.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Jerome Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v King, 147 Misc.2d 162 Statutory exemption from Rent Stabilization Law for certain housing cooperatives. Supported the conclusion that the building’s cooperative status exempts it from rent stabilization protections.
Wilson v One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 198, 200 Exemption from rent stabilization law is not subject to waiver or equitable estoppel. Confirmed that the statutory exemption cannot be circumvented by tenant arguments.
157 W. 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v Hickson, 142 Misc.2d 984, 985 Governmental entwinement with premises triggers constitutional due process protections. Applied to find that the city’s involvement required due process protections, including notice of eviction cause.
Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 N.Y.2d 152, 158 Definition of governmental entwinement triggering due process. Used to support the conclusion that significant government participation requires procedural safeguards.
Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 N.Y.2d 315, 318 Governmental restrictions and right of reversion in housing cooperatives. Illustrated the non-private nature of the housing cooperative and government oversight.
Hudsonview Terrace v Maury, 100 Misc.2d 331, 332 Eviction requires cause beyond mere expiration of the lease. Supported the requirement that eviction petitions must allege a valid cause.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the Appellate Term that the building’s status as a not-for-profit housing cooperative corporation created a statutory exemption from the Rent Stabilization Law. This exemption is absolute and not subject to waiver or estoppel. However, the court found a separate and controlling constitutional issue: the government’s significant involvement with the premises—through restrictions on the use and disposition of the property, oversight of tenant evictions, and approval requirements—constitutes sufficient governmental entwinement to trigger due process protections. These protections require the landlord to provide notice of the reasons for eviction and to establish cause beyond mere expiration of the lease. Since the landlord failed to allege any cause for eviction, the petition was properly dismissed despite the landlord’s exemption from rent stabilization law. The court relied on precedents establishing that government participation in housing programs imposes constitutional procedural safeguards on eviction proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The order of the Appellate Term is reversed, and the respondent-tenant's motion to dismiss the petition is granted.

The direct effect of this decision is that the landlord’s eviction petition was dismissed because it failed to provide constitutionally mandated notice of the basis for eviction. This ruling enforces the requirement that governmental entwinement with housing programs triggers due process protections, including the necessity to allege a valid cause for eviction. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing constitutional principles to the facts of this cooperative housing context.

512 EAST 11TH STREET HDFC, Respondent, v. CARL GRIMMET, Appellant.

In this holdover proceeding, commenced on or about October 26, 1988, petitioner-landlord, 512 East 11th Street HDFC ("landlord"), seeks to recover the subject premises, Apartment 2D of 512 East 11th Street, New York, New York, from respondent-tenant, Carl Grimmet ("tenant"), on the ground that it is occupied pursuant to a month-to-month tenancy, for which the landlord has served a 30-day Notice to Terminate. Tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding in the Civil Court, arguing that his is a rent-stabilized tenancy and, as such, can only be terminated on grounds specified in Rent Stabilization Code (9 N.Y.CRR) § 2524.3.

The subject building, 512 East 11th Street, was previously owned by the City of New York, and managed by the tenants through the Tenants Interim Lease (TIL) program. In July 1982, the building was converted to a not-for-profit housing cooperative corporation under General Business Law § 352-eeee and Private Housing Finance Law article XI. We are in agreement with the Appellate Term that this status created a statutory exemption from the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-504 [a]; Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.11 [j], [l]; Jerome Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v King, 147 Misc.2d 162). Such an exemption is not subject to waiver or equitable estoppel (see, Wilson v One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 198, 200).

Our examination of this record leads us to conclude, however, that dismissal of the petition is warranted on the separate ground that the government is sufficiently "`entwined'" with the subject premises so as to trigger constitutional due process protections requiring notice of the reasons for an eviction (157 W. 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v Hickson, 142 Misc.2d 984, 985, quoting Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 N.Y.2d 152, 158). We note, for example, that the landlord's certificate of incorporation, which states its purpose as "exclusively for the * * * develop[ment of] a housing project for persons of low income", imposes various restrictions on the use, sale, and transfer of shares of the housing project, and mandates that it provide housing pursuant to the definition of low income families contained in Private Housing Finance Law, article XI, § 576. The property may not be sold or otherwise disposed of without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development, and the City's approval must be obtained before a tenant may be evicted. In short, the conduct of this Housing Development Fund Cooperative is not private, since its very purpose is to meet the governmental concern of housing the poor, and the City retains a right of reversion in the event the landlord fails to abide by the terms and conditions placed upon the property and its use (see, Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 N.Y.2d 315, 318). As noted in 157 W. 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v Hickson (supra, at 985): "While the TIL program is transitory in nature, the city oversees petitioner's activities and operation, monitors its building management skills, sets initial rents and approves subsequent rent increases, and must approve the commencement of holdover proceedings. Thus, the city is so `entwined' with the conduct of the program as to constitute significant and meaningful governmental participation, triggering constitutional due process guarantees (see generally, Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 N.Y.2d 152, 158). One of those guarantees is that a tenant is entitled to notice of the alleged cause for eviction and procedural due process in the determination of whether cause exists. `Eviction * * * requires a cause other than mere expiration of the lease' (Hudsonview Terrace v Maury, 100 Misc.2d 331, 332 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Since petitioner did not allege any cause for removal of the tenant, the petition was properly dismissed."

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, and respondent-tenant's motion to dismiss the petition is granted on the ground that the landlord failed to provide constitutionally-mandated notice of basis for eviction.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

512 EAST 11TH STREET HDFC v. GRIMMET
(Mar 10, 1992)