OUCH! Tenant loses rent stabilized apt. over Airbnb rentals!
The court held that the tenant had “engaged in profiteering by renting out the apartment or allowing his children to rent out the apartment, to a series of short-term transient tenants for commercial purposes on Airbnb.” Based on online reviews and other evidence presented, the court found that the apartment had been “listed and rented out to travelers through the Airbnb website.”
The court stated that “[s]uch brazen and commercial exploitation of a rent-stabilized apartment significantly undermines the purpose and integrity of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and is therefore incurable.” Thus, the landlord was awarded a final judgment of possession.
Bpark v. Durena
Knowing the venue where you are litigating your eviction is vital in several ways including the cost of the action. Nassau County in particular can be very costly due to some local town codes. In Nassau County, the Sheriff requires the landlord to pay for the moving expenses and first month’s storage charges for the tenant’s belongings. The reason for this cost is that Nassau County and the municipalities and townships inside Nassau County have ordinances and codes in place to protect the public health and welfare in their municipalities or towns. These town codes prevent garbage and discarded property from being left curbside. Faced with the dilemma of figuring out how to execute the warrant of eviction for landlords without leaving the tenant’s belongings curbside, the Sheriff decided to employ the services of a moving company to remove the tenants belongings and acquire a storage unit to hold such belongings. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff to ensure that the municipality collects these funds and does not take a financial loss. The Sheriff therefore demands that the landlord pay the moving and storage expense upfront. For more information regarding this aspect of Nassau County eviction proceedings, read the decision of
Court Appearance Default
Did you attend a court appearance and the other side wasn’t there? Did you miss a court date and want to know what your options are? Vaughn and Weber can help you decide what to do next.
People miss appointments. It’s a fact of life. Accidents, illnesses, family emergencies, or any number of other events beyond our control may prevent people from attending meetings, even very important ones. Court appearances are just as likely to be interrupted by such events as anything else. Courts understand this, and missing a court date is not necessarily fatal to a case. When someone misses a court date, or “defaults,” every party involved – the appearing party, the absent or defaulting party, and the Court – has options.
Section 202.7 of the Uniform Court Rules, titled “Defaults,” provides:
At any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference, if all parties do not appear and proceed or announce their readiness to proceed immediately or subject to the engagement of counsel, the judge may note the default on the record and enter an order as follows:
(a) If the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not, the judge may grant judgment by default or order an inquest.
(b) If the defendant appears but the plaintiff does not, the judge may dismiss the action and may order a severance of counterclaims or cross-claims.
(c) If no party appears, the judge may make such order as appears just.
This section gives Courts certain options, depending on the type of case, and whether the defaulting party is a defendant or plaintiff. Most importantly, this rule gives the Court the power to enter a Default Judgment against the absent party. When a Default Judgment is entered against the absent party, the present party wins the case. This is good news for the present party, but it is not the end of the story. Even if the Court enters a Default Judgment against the absent party, the present party – the “winner” – still has work to do. Section 2220 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules requires that the winner provide the defaulting party with notice of the Judgment. When the defaulting party receives notice of the Judgment, that party has a certain period of time to ask the Court for an opportunity to explain the absence. If the Court is satisfied that the absent party has good cause for missing the court date, the Court may re-open the case. If not, then the default judgment ends the case.
If you have questions about defaulting on court appearances, Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC is here to assist you. Call 516-858-2620 to schedule a free consultation. We are located in the heart of Long Island at 393 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 208, Mineola, NY 11501.
*Contributions to the research for this article have been made by Jason Mays, J.D.
Steven J. Baum to Close
It may have seemed inevitable to those directly involved in the foreclosure field, but it is still a surprise to hear. According to a Buffalo Business First, the mega-firm of Steven J. Baum, P.C. is to close it’s doors:
“The embattled Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm is the closing its doors after a series of missteps that included mortgage industry giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae cutting off business with the Amherst-based firm.”
Read the full article here.
If you are facing foreclosure and are seeking assistance, please call us at (516) 858-2620!