Knopfler v. Soybel

(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 5/31/88)

We represented: Plaintiff

Ciparick, J.

DECISION and ORDER Plaintiffs move for an order, inter alia, compelling defendant to provide consent to the sublease between plaintiffs and the prospective subleasee.

This action sounds in declaratory judgment.

Plaintiffs are co-tenants of a rent-stabilized apartment located at 269 West 72^nd Street; Manhattan. Their lease shall expire on November 30, 1988.

In the fall of 1987 tenants learned that Mr. Knopfler was being transferred to his employer's London office in England for a period of 12 to 18 months commencing December, 1987. Most of the household furnishings were to remain in the apartment where plaintiffs would resume occupancy upon their return to this City.

In accordance with the notification requirements of Real Property Law Section 226-b and their lease, plaintiffs notified the defendant landlord of their intention to sublease the sublease the subject apartment to a David J. Roache.

The landlord received all the information requested but on January 11, 1988 by letter he rejected the sublease on the grounds that he believed that tenant did not intend to return to the apartment at the expiration of the sublease term.

In opposition to the motion, defendant landlord alleges that a named mutual friend of plaintiffs had informed him of plaintiffs' intention to stay in England for a much longer time and would change his employment if necessary to extend his time in England.

The statement is given no weight by this court on the grounds of hearsay. No affidavit of this so-called friend is attached to the papers.

Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent of ordering defendant to provide consent to the sublease between plaintiffs and David J. Roache.

Of course, if plaintiffs do not return within the period requested, defendant need not renew the sublease.