Kucker & Bruh, LLP is a highly respected Manhattan law firm serving New York City’s five boroughs, as well as Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties.
The firm’s practice focuses on real estate matters, administrative law, commercial transactions, contract negotiation, litigation, employment law, international trade disputes, corporate, partnership and limited liability company law, bankruptcy, intellectual property, construction law, and complex civil actions.
In this case, 82 occupants brought an action against the owner of several Brooklyn buildings and claimed that each of their units should be subject to rent stabilization laws.
Nikolaos Preponis, Of Counsel at K&B, successfully defended the validity of a non-primary residence holdover involving a corporate tenant after the Respondent submitted a motion to dismiss the proceeding. In their motion, the Respondent claimed that the Notice of Non-Renewal was fatally defective because one of the occupants of the subject apartment was not named in the Notice.
A landlord commenced a holdover proceeding against a rent-stabilized Tenant who consistently disregarded his obligations under both his written lease and the Rent Stabilization Code by refusing to provide the Landlord with access to make repairs in the apartment. The Tenant continuously contacted HPD to report violations in the apartment and would then refuse to provide access once a violation was issued. The tenant’s refusal to provide the landlord with access resulted in the landlord being unable to remedy the various issues in the apartment.
Ultimately, the Landlord requested access to make repairs 27 individual times by sending written requests to the tenant. The tenant ignored each of these 27 requests and continued to refuse access. At the request of the landlord, K&B commenced a holdover proceeding against the tenant based on his persistent refusal to provide access to the landlord. After the trial, the court ruled in favor of the landlord and issued a warrant of eviction that could be executed if the tenant did not provide access within ten days. Nikolaos Preponis represented the landlord.