Warren A Estis

April 05, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, write that in enforcing a lease, and in any resulting litigation, opportunities frequently arise when a strategic decision must be made whether to take what might be viewed as an aggressive approach. They analyze a recent decision as an example of a case where a landlord successfully used such a strategy.

By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins

13 minute read

May 04, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, warn owners to beware: "The four-year rule will not protect you if the status, rather than the rent, of the apartment is primarily at issue."

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

10 minute read

January 05, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, report that the Appellate Division, First Department has unanimously upheld a DHCR regulation that requires tenants to retain proof that they have timely answered an owner's petition to luxury deregulate a rent stabilized apartment.

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

9 minute read

May 07, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, write that under the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, the "legal" rent for an apartment is the rent charged on the base date, plus applicable Rent Guidelines Board increases. Owners, however, are free to charge tenants a "preferential rent," i.e., a rent below the legal rent. However, once an owner charged a lower, preferential rent, all future rents for that apartment would be based on the lower amount.

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

9 minute read

March 05, 2002 | New York Law Journal

In its recent decision in Brusco v. Armstrong , 1 a unanimous Appellate Term, First Department held that the "20-year rule" whereby rent regulated tenants cannot be evicted on owner occupancy grounds if they have been a tenant in the building for 20 years or more did not apply to rent stabilized tenants in New York City. The decision resolves a split of authority among the lower courts.

By Warren A. Estis And Jeffrey Turkel

11 minute read

November 03, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding member at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, analyze a recent case which could potentially impact thousands of rent regulated tenants who split their time between Florida and New York.

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

9 minute read

October 04, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, review a recent decision establishing, apparently for the first time, that secondhand smoke emanating from a neighbor can be a breach of the warranty of habitability implied in residential leases and therefore grounds for a constructive eviction.

By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins

12 minute read

July 01, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, write: One of the primary features of the Rent Stabilization Law ? at least for owners ? is the rent increase awarded for an Individual Apartment Improvement. IAIs relate to new equipment and improvements that an owner, usually upon vacancy, adds to an apartment, such as new kitchen cabinets, a new stove or refrigerator, or a complete bathroom renovation. In contrast, Major Capital Improvements concern the installation of new building systems, such as a new elevator, roof or boiler.

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

11 minute read

March 01, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding member of Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, analyze the recent decision in Rizzo v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department, holding that DHCR properly refused to consider evidence pertaining to events that occurred one day after DHCR had issued a final order granting the landlord's partial eviction application.

By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel

9 minute read

February 06, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, write that in the First Department, there is a cognizable claim for tortious interference with contract against a holdover tenant by a new tenant prevented from taking possession by the holdover. Whether such a claim will be viable in a given situation, however, will depend on the terms of the leases involved and the significance of those terms. That is a matter as to which judges may well differ.

By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins

13 minute read