1564. TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF SHARI LYNN GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. LINDA LIPETZ, Defendant-res-res — Kaufman Friedman Plotnicki & Grun, LLP, New York (Howard Grun of counsel), for appellant-res — Law Offices of Fred L. Seeman, New York (Fred L. Seeman of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 27, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its first, second and third causes of action and for dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and to declare that plaintiff validly terminated the lease, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The law is clear that a rent-stabilized tenant who sublets her apartment at market rates to realize substantial profits not lawfully available to the landlord, and does so systematically, for a substantial length of time, places herself in jeopardy of having her lease terminated on that ground, with no right to cure (see Gruber v. Anastas, 100 AD3d 829 [2d Dept 2012]; 220 W. 93rd St., LLC v. Stavrolakes, 33 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007]; Matter of 151-155 Atl. Ave. v. Pendry, 308 AD2d 543, 543-544 [2d Dept 2003]; BLF Realty Holding Corp. v. Kasher, 299 AD2d 87, 91 [1st Dept 2002], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 535 [2003]; Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v. Freuman, 128 Misc 2d 680 [App Term, 1st Dept 1985]). The record before us establishes, as a matter of law, that this is precisely what defendant did with the rentstabilized cooperative apartment she leased from plaintiff, the trust that holds the unit’s appurtenant cooperative shares and its proprietary lease. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its first cause of action (for a declaration that it validly terminated the lease), on its second cause of action (for ejectment), and as to liability on its third cause of action (for recovery of the fair value of the use and occupancy of the apartment since defendant was served with notice of the termination of the lease). We therefore modify the order appealed from to grant plaintiff’s motion for such relief.
