Firm News

by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on June 9, 1997.

by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on September 22, 1997.

On May 2, 2002, in Malafis et al. v. Shannon, Index No. L&T 101887/01 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co., May 2, 2002) (Marton, J.H.C.), a notable ruling was issued recognizing the right of an owner to recover a rent stabilized apartment for use by his son. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP represented the landlord/owner in this owner-occupancy summary holdover case. Ultimately, the court held that the landlord had proved his prima facie case and owners were entitled to possession of rent stabilized apartment unit for use by owners’ son. The court determined the landlord established good faith since eviction was sought with honest intention and desire to gain possession of the subject premises for use by their son. The availability of other apartments renting for higher sums did not establish lack of good faith. Court also explained that owner was not required to occupy an apartment that was not controlled and thus diminish its income.

by Saul D. Bruh, Esq. and Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on March 23, 1998.

by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on March 20, 2000.

by Nativ Winiarsky, Esq., printed in legal journal on July 31, 2002.

by Nativ Winiarsky, Esq. and Abner T. Zelman, Esq., printed in legal journal on September 30, 2002.

by Alan D. Kucker, Esq. and Andrew B. Bittens, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on May 19, 2003.

by Alan D. Kucker, Esq. and John M. Churneftsky, Esq., co-author Charging Roommates In Rent-Controlled Units Under Scrutiny”, printed inNew York Law Journal on June 21, 2004.

Nativ Winiarsky, a partner at Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens LLP, writes that in the race to rehabilitate old manufacturing buildings in now-fashionable neighborhoods, zoning codes are sometimes overlooked – codes that may then be used to eject tenants of noncompliant lofts. Counsel for these tenants often turn to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act, but until the Legislature steps in, that protection should remain unavailable. An article printed in the New York Law Journal on April 10, 2007.

Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens LLP Partner Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed “Rent Overcharge Claims by New York City Tenants; Who Presides Over Disputes?” in New York Law Journal on September 25, 1995.

On December 22, 2009, in Three East Third Corp. v. 351 Bowery Assoc., LLC, et al., Index 101479/09 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co.), Justice Charles Ramos of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, ruled in favor of two independent motions which Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP had filed in a complex civil action in which the firm sought recovery for the substantial damages suffered by five clients due to negligent construction in three adjoining lots on which a 22-floor apartment building was built. The Court issued an Order which granted Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens’s motion to amend one of the civil actions to include additional defendants, and issued another Order which granted Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens’s motion to consolidate the three extant civil actions.

On September 24, 2010, in 333 East 43 Owners Corp. v. Boylan, L&T Index 54067/10 (NY Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an important decision for its client, the cooperative corporation (landlord) against the cooperative shareholder (tenant) for unpaid coop maintenance and storage fees. Housing Court Judge Michelle Schreiber held the petitioner coop corporation was the prevailing party in having received 100% of the relief it demanded in court – payment of all of the unpaid coop maintenance and storage fees, and the shareholder tenant did not prevail on any of her affirmative defenses or her $1 million counterclaim. The fact that the petitioner was able to obtain relief without resort to a judgment was deemed by the court not to alter the circumstances for purposes of determining a prevailing party (the shareholder capitulated when trial was to commence and signed a stipulation of settlement in which the coop corporation obtained all of the relief sought in its lawsuit), and, thus, the petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party.

On October 6, 2010, in 333 East 43 Owners Corp. v. Boylan, L&T Index 54067/10 (NY Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co.), by So Ordered stipulation, the Housing Court awarded $50,000.00 in attorneys’ fees to the client of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP as the prevailing party in a lawsuit for unpaid cooperative maintenance and storage fees owed by the coop shareholder tenant.

On June 25, 2009, in Danielle Friscia, DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. XB-420005-RT (administrative ruling), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP was successful in persuading the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to decline to apply the holding of the court decision in Thornton v. Baron. In Danielle Friscia, the DHCR ruled in favor of the landlord, and in doing so distinguished the court decision in Thornton v. Baron. The DHCR concluded that the “4 year look-back period” in rent overcharge cases was only extended in Thornton where the landlord admitted that fraudulent conduct occurred both prior to and during the 4 year period, and that expansion of that 4 year period will not occur where the landlord disputes that any such fraud occurred and where there is no evidence of fraud in the record). Comment: This is a significant limitation on the impact of the Thornton decision, which until now has been cited on a near-continual basis by tenants in an effort to bypass the 4-year rule in rent overcharge matters.