Matter of Georgetown Unsold Shares, LLC v. Ledet
12 N.Y.S.3d 160
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- Tenant Arlene Ledet (aka Arlene Solkoff) occupied a rent‑stabilized Queens apartment since 1971; lease expired April 30, 2010.
- On January 5, 2010 (115 days before expiration), landlord Georgetown Unsold Shares, LLC served a timely written nonrenewal notice stating the unit was not Ledet’s primary residence and warning of holdover proceedings.
- Ledet did not vacate and submitted unsolicited rent checks for May and June 2010; the managing agent received and deposited them.
- Landlord began a summary holdover proceeding to recover possession and sought discovery (voter and vehicle registration, condominium records) to show Ledet’s Florida residency.
- Ledet cross‑moved to dismiss, arguing that acceptance of post‑expiration rent waived the nonrenewal notice; Civil Court and Appellate Term granted dismissal and denied landlord’s discovery motion.
- Appellate Division reversed: acceptance of unsolicited rent after lease expiration, standing alone, does not waive a properly served nonrenewal notice; discovery was permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acceptance of unsolicited rent after lease expiration nullifies a timely nonrenewal notice under the Rent Stabilization Law | Georgetown: acceptance was inadvertent; depositing checks does not show intent to waive nonrenewal rights | Ledet: acceptance of rent constituted waiver of landlord’s nonrenewal notice, barring holdover | Held: Acceptance of unsolicited post‑expiration rent, standing alone, does not establish intentional waiver of a nonrenewal notice |
| Whether landlord must return unsolicited rent to avoid waiver | Georgetown: no duty to return unsolicited payment; depositing by mistake does not equal waiver | Ledet: failure to return indicates landlord accepted and reinforced tenancy | Held: No rule requires return of unsolicited rent; nonreturn alone does not prove waiver |
| Whether landlord showed entitlement to discovery in summary holdover proceeding | Georgetown: demonstrated need for voter, vehicle, and condo records to prove nonprimary residence | Ledet: discovery improper because relying on attorney affirmation without personal knowledge | Held: Motion for leave to conduct discovery should be granted; requests were tailored, relevant, and not unduly burdensome |
| Whether tenant’s continued possession + payment created a tenancy right to a renewal lease | Georgetown: continued possession does not create right when landlord served valid nonrenewal based on nonprimary residence | Ledet: continued payment & possession argued to support renewal | Held: Validly served nonrenewal notice remains effective absent clear evidence of intentional waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefpaul Garage Corp. v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 61 N.Y.2d 442 (court: NY Court of Appeals 1984) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of known right)
- Sullivan v. Brevard Assocs., 66 N.Y.2d 489 (court: NY Court of Appeals 1985) (acceptance of rent alone insufficient to show waiver without evidence of intent)
- Golub v. Frank, 65 N.Y.2d 900 (court: NY Court of Appeals 1985) (timely served nonrenewal predicate notice principle cited)
- Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 84 N.Y.2d 385 (court: NY Court of Appeals 1994) (discussing balance in rent stabilization between landlord and primary‑residence tenants)
- Katz Park Ave. Corp. v. Jagger, 11 N.Y.3d 314 (court: NY Court of Appeals 2008) (purpose of excluding nonprimary residences from rent stabilization)
- 205 E. 78th St. Assoc. v. Cassidy, 192 A.D.2d 479 (court: App. Div. 1st Dept. 1993) (contrasting authority that gave weight to nonreturn of inadvertent payment)