The following is a list of decisions published in the New York Law Journal wherein Kenneth B. Hawco successfully represented the tenant in each lawsuit.

LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW -- PUBLISHED DECISIONS

Grimm v DHCR, 68 AD3d 29, 886 NYS2d 111 [1st Dep't 2009]. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's determination (NYLJ, Dec. 27, 2007, p. 26, col. 1 [Sup Ct, NY County, Kornreich, J]), which remanded a rent overcharge lawsuit to DHCR so that it could consider if the landlord committed fraud even though the alleged fraud was committed more than four years prior to the filing of the rent overcharge complaint.

An article about this case appeared on the front page of the New York Law Journal on September 28, 2009: "Panel rules agency rent fraud probe is not time barred."

Ramos v Ferderline, NYLJ, Jan. 16, 2008, p. 28, col. 1 [Civ Ct, Kings County, Fiorella, J], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" (nonpayment petition dismissed because month-to-month tenant could not be sued for rent amount higher than expired lease amount).

This case is cited twice in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, §§'s 12:12 and 12:16 [2009-2010].

286 Clinton LLC v Lazarre, 18 Misc 3d 1101(A), 856 NYS2d 27 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2007, Kraus, J] (held that consideration of events beyond the four year statute of limitations period is permissible if done for the purpose of determining whether the premises is subject to rent regulation).

This case is cited in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, § 4:266 [2009-2010].

Mangano v Burke, 14 Misc 3d 126(A), 831 NYS2d 360 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006], (affirmed lower court's determination (NYLJ, June 29, 2005, p. 19, col. 3 [Civ Ct, NY County, Schreiber, J]), reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" (prevailing tenant entitled to recover attorney's fees even though he could not produce his initial lease because the allegations in the landlord's verified petition constituted a formal judicial admission that a valid lease containing an attorney's fees provision existed between the parties thus triggering the reciprocity provisions of RPL § 234).

This case is cited in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, § 16:20 [2009-2010].

Negron v Goldman, 11 Misc 3d 144(A), 819 NYS2d 849 [App Term, 1st Dep't 2006] (affirmed lower court's award of attorney's fees in a rent overcharge action (195 Misc 2d 425, 759 NYS2d 311 [Civ Ct, NY County 2003, Kern, J]) and remanded for the recalculation of prejudgment interest).

200-202 West 107th St., LLC v Braun, NYLJ, May 1, 2002, p. 23, col. 2 [Civ Ct, NY County, Schreiber, J], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Court finds rent demand was defective because [it was] not issued by landlord or its agent." The tenants successfully moved to dismiss a non-payment proceeding because the rent demand had been issued by a stranger to the tenants. The Petitioner (the company that sued the tenants) claimed that it was really the tenants landlord, having used various names while running its real estate empire. The court rejected the Petitioner's claim and dismissed the proceeding.

This case is cited in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, § 9:19 [2009-2010].

Negron v Goldman, NYLJ, Jan. 2, 2002, p. 18, col. 6 [Civ Ct, NY County, James, J], aff'd, 4 Misc 3d 140(A), 798 NYS2d 346 [App Term, 1st Dep't 2004], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Law of the case doctrine invoked by Court assessing rent overcharge." The court denied the landlord's motion to dismiss, assessed damages of $56,000.00 (including the rent overcharge amount, plus sanctions and interest) and scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney's fees due the tenants.

Negron v Goldman, NYLJ, Oct. 17, 2001, p. 18, col. 5 [Civ Ct, NY County, Billings, J], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Landlord failed to bring meritorious defense justifying rent overcharge default vacatur." The tenants successfully defeated the landlord's attempt to vacate their default in appearing for a scheduled assessment hearing and successfully moved for sanctions. The court declared that the landlord's attempt to vacate their default, which was really a pretext to try and have the tenants rent overcharge claims dismissed, "was frivolous in completely lacking in merit, contemptuous in completely disregarding binding law of the case, dilatory in delaying resolution of the case through trial, and wasteful of resources that could have been devoted directly to the trial."

500 West End LLC v Paleologos, NYLJ, June 29, 2001, p. 19, col. 3 [App Term, 1st Dep't]. The tenant (an octogenarian) successfully defeated the landlord's attempt to evict her from the rent controlled apartment she had lived in for 50 years. At trial the tenant established that she was absent extensively from her apartment because she spent several days a month in Boston doing volunteer work at a hospice for blind children. Because of the special reason the tenant was absent from her apartment the lower court (Jerald R. Klein, J) held that the tenant did not relinquish her primary New York City residence and dismissed the landlord's non-primary residence proceeding. The Appellate Term affirmed.

500 West End v Merkin, NYLJ, April 26, 2000, p. 28, col. 4 [Civ Ct, NY County, Fitzpatrick, J], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Jury waiver in 1969 lease is unenforceable in non-primary residence holdover suit." The court denied the landlord's motion to strike the tenant's jury demand, even though both sides had agreed in a lease to waive a trial by jury in any proceeding, because "the lease predates a judicial cause of action for eviction of rent-controlled tenants based upon non-primary residence."

This case is cited in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, § 10:34 [2009-2010].

Aaros Realty LLC v Clements, NYLJ, Feb. 14, 1998, p. 28, col. 5 [Civ Ct, NY County, Acosta, J], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Petition dismissed without prejudice; rent was accepted after 'violation.'" The court granted the tenant's motion to dismiss the holdover proceeding because the landlord's acceptance of rent after the tenancy was purportedly terminated (due to an alleged illegal sublet) and before the commencement of the proceeding, vitiated the Notice of Termination.

Negron v Goldman, NYLJ, Feb. 4, 1998, p. 26, col. 2 [Civ Ct, NY County, Ling-Cohan, J], aff'd, NYLJ, May 4, 1999, p. 26, col. 2 [App Term, 1st Dep't], appeal dismissed, 273 AD2d 948, 714 NYS2d 620 [1st Dep't 2000], reported in the New York Law Journal as a "Decision of Interest" with the heading: "Residential base rent cannot derive from earlier commercial rent." The court declared that "the statute of limitations on a tenant's challenge to the rent does not begin to run until the landlord files the initial legal regulated rent notice," that "the rent charged a commercial tenant may not be used to calculate the base rent for the apartment," and awarded the tenants attorney's fees pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.1.

This case is cited in Scherer, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York, § 4:259 [2009-2010].