Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 12/29/2001 5:11:45 PM EDT
pissed you off wait to you hear what Westchester does with your tax dollars... one of my wifes group members had this case to edit this week and I knew you Westchester Co guys would get a kick out of it. CASE NAME: Universal Motor Lodges, Inc., Doing Business as Elmsford Motor Lodge, Petitioner, v. Barbara Seignious, Respondent SHORT NAME: Universal Motor Lodges, Inc. v. Seignious DOCKET#: [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT: Justice Court of Village of Elmsford, Westchester County CITE: 146 Misc. 2d 395; 550 N.Y.S.2d 800; N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 24 CASE SUMMARY: POSTURE Petitioner motel owner filed an action pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 713(7) to recover possession of one of its motel units from respondent, a homeless person who had been placed at the motel by the county Department of Social Services. CITE OVERVIEW A homeless person who had resided in a motel unit at county expense for more than two years was a tenant, not a transient, and thus she was entitled to 30 days' notice to vacate from the motel owner. OVERVIEW[b] The homeless person had been staying at the motel, at the county's expense, for over two years. The motel owner argued that the homeless person was a mere transient or licensee who could be given merely 10 days' notice to quit as provided in N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 713. The homeless person argued that she was a month-to-month tenant whose occupancy could be terminated only by a 30-day notice to vacate pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 711. The court agreed with the homeless person and dismissed the motel owner's petition. The court held that § 711 included in its definition of "tenant" one who had been in possession of a hotel room for 30 consecutive days or longer; here, the homeless person had been in possession of the motel unit for more than two years. Also, because she had no other home, the homeless person could not be defined as a "transient." OUTCOME The court dismissed the motel owner's proceeding to recover one of its motel units from the homeless person.[/b] CORE CONCEPTS
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:12:34 PM EDT
1. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Eviction Actions [To Text] Under N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 713(7), a summary proceeding may be brought to recover possession of a motel unit if the owner has duly revoked the license of the occupant of that unit. 2. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Eviction Actions [To Text] A tenant's occupancy can only be terminated by a 30-day notice to vacate. 3. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Residential Leases [To Text] N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 711 specifies that a tenant shall include an occupant of one or more rooms in a rooming house or a resident, not including a transient occupant, of one or more rooms in a hotel, who has been in possession for 30 consecutive days or longer. 4. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Residential Leases [To Text] "Transient" has been considered the opposite of "resident," and with respect to a hotel, is one who has a home elsewhere and is staying at the hotel for a short period in connection with a trip away from home. 5. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Residential Leases [To Text] Under N.Y. Mult. Resid. Law § 50(1), the term "transient occupancy" of a hotel is defined as meaning occupancy by the same person or persons for a period of 90 days or less.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:13:17 PM EDT
6. REAL PROPERTY LAW;LANDLORD & TENANT;Residential Leases [To Text] Under N.Y. Tax Law § 1101(c)(5), the New York sales tax on hotel accommodations is not applicable after 90 consecutive days' occupancy because one who resides in a room in a hotel for longer than 90 days is considered to be a permanent resident of the hotel not a transient. DISPOSITION: For the reasons heretofore noted this proceeding is dismissed. COUNSEL: Taylor, McCullough, Goldberger & Geoghegan for petitioner. Ann M. McDonald for respondent. JUDGES: William H. Pohlmann, J. OPINION BY: POHLMANN OPINION: OPINION OF THE COURT The problems of the homeless are chronicled almost daily in the tabloids in Westchester County, and indeed, throughout the entire country. There are presently thousands of people in this county who are homeless, and there is very little in the way of permanent housing available for the placement of such people. Within the Village of Elmsford in Westchester County there are an inordinate number of homeless people placed in motels by the County Department of Social Services. The instant proceeding is brought by the owner of one of those motels (the Elmsford Motor Lodge) pursuant to RPAPL 713 (7) to recover possession of one of its motel units from respondent Barbara Seignious. Respondent is an otherwise homeless person placed at the Elmsford Motor Lodge by the Department of Social Services which pays approximately [b]$ 3,500 per month for the cost of her maintenance there.[/b] [To CC]Under the aforementioned section of the law a summary proceeding may be brought to recover possession of that motel unit if the owner has duly revoked the license of the occupant of that unit. Petitioner asserts that respondent being a mere transient or licensee has been given the requisite 10-day notice to quit provided in RPAPL 713 and thus is entitled to recover possession of the unit. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that she is a month-to-month tenant (not a licensee) and as such RPAPL 711 is the law applicable to this case and that section gives her greater rights than a mere licensee. Among other things, [To CC]a tenant's occupancy can only be terminated by a 30-day notice to vacate. In the opinion of this court respondent's argument as presented by Westchester Legal Services is more persuasive. [To CC]Section 711 specifies that a tenant "shall include an occupant of one or more rooms in a rooming house or a resident, not including a transient occupant, of one or more rooms in a hotel, who has been in possession for thirty consecutive days or longer". Here, respondent has been in possession of a motel unit for well over two years. In addition, respondent is not properly characterized as a transient. In Mann v 125 E. 50th St. Corp. (124 Misc 2d 115, 116-117, affd 126 Misc 2d 1016), the court therein noted: "There is no precise test for determining whether one is a transient provided by statute or case law, the meaning depending on the context. (See State v Anonymous, 34 Conn 603.) Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as 'passing through or by a place with only a brief stay or sojourn.' [To CC]'Transient' has been considered the opposite of 'resident' (see The Leontios Teryazos, 45 F Supp 618), and with respect to a hotel, is one who has a home elsewhere and is staying at the hotel for a short period in connection with a trip away from home."
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:13:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2001 5:15:10 PM EDT by offctr]
At bar, the respondent has no other home. She is, in fact, "a homeless person". Indeed, the general public is not even invited to stay at the Elmsford Motor Lodge and accommodations are only provided to public assistance recipients who are homeless. Clearly, therefore, respondent who has been living at the motel for in excess of two years is not a transient. * Not being a transient she qualifies as a tenant pursuant to RPAPL 711 and is thus entitled to the rights of a tenant, even if only a month-to-month tenant. Not affording respondent at least one month's notice, the statutory requirement for termination of her tenancy has not been met. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Statutory references which support respondent's claim of tenancy and not mere licensee are Multiple Residence Law § 50 and Tax Law § 1101 (c) (5). [To CC]Under the Multiple Residence Law the term "transient occupancy" of a hotel is defined as meaning occupancy "by the same person or persons for a period of ninety days or less" (§ 50 [1]). Respondent, Barbara Seignious, was an occupant at petitioner's motel for well in excess of two years. Similarly [To CC]under the Tax Law, the New York sales tax on hotel accommodations is not applicable after 90 consecutive days' occupancy because one who resides in a room in a hotel for longer than 90 days is considered to be a permanent resident of the hotel not a transient. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner finally points to the testimony of the Mayor of Elmsford, Arthur De Angelis, and Elmsford's Municipal Code, which only licenses the Elmsford Motor Lodge for the purposes of "overnight or temporary sleeping or housing accommodations for a consideration, tourists, transients or travelers", as indicative of the fact that respondent is merely a transient and not a month-to-month tenant. Moreover, section 45-7 (E) of that municipal code limits occupancy of a person at such motel "to not more than thirty (30) days in any ninety day period." In the opinion of this court the characterization of respondent as tenant or transient is not altered by the fact that the Elmsford Motor Lodge may perhaps be in violation of the license issued to it by the Village of Elmsford. Indeed, whether the Elmsford Motor Lodge is in violation of its license and the Elmsford Municipal Code by permitting homeless people to be maintained by Social Services at its motel, and for a period in excess of 30 days, and whether or not the Village of Elmsford is empowered to so regulate by ordinance, are questions not before this court. It is enough to say that respondent here is a homeless person not a transient, is for the reasons noted a month-to-month tenant, and may not be evicted without being given a 30-day notice to vacate -- which was not afforded her in this case. For the reasons heretofore noted this proceeding is dismissed. $3500 a month to put homeless people up in a hotel for two years --and thats all the business the hotel does (homeless people).And they cant even evict them. after what they put you through they ought to pay you that.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:35:27 PM EDT
OK i have definately got to move.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:35:31 PM EDT
Unless I'm mistaken, I drive by this place every other day along the Saw Mill. Lets just say the owners are lucky to have the them as guests. If I owned that place I'd be more than happy to turn it into an SRO and collect $3,500+ per room,+ tax incentives. If there are any property damages simply send a bill to the Westchester County. At the very least you know you'll be paid. Heck, if you know the owners give them my e-mail and maybe I'll buy the place. [i]$3500 per room/month for that hotel![/i]
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 5:58:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2001 6:08:03 PM EDT by prk]
I believe the case was correctly decided. What has me crapping my pants is the $116 a day they paid. Did this include room service meals, or something? Unless this woman was unable to help herself, they could put her in an apartment for half that, somewhere. How many rooms to this exclusive homeless enclave? Does the mayor own it, or something?
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 6:04:30 PM EDT
Yep I think it is the one right along the saw mill by the catering place one of my co workers rents one of the condos on the cliff overlooking the area and dosent pay that much in rent. I mean I know westchester is somewhat exclusive and upscale but this is totally ridiculous there are NYC (nice) apartments that dont cost that much. I am in the wrong line of work I need to be homeless or a hotel owner in Elmsford.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 6:43:36 PM EDT
$3500 a month!! Were they paying for her drugs too? Jesus, she had one hell of a nice motel room, plus some prime crack, and a lot of really damn good food.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 1:51:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 3:33:09 AM EDT
Absolutly!!! I lived in mid town (31st bteween park and madison) in the late '70s/early '80s. My 1 bedroom was running me $1800.00 monthly and I was glad to have it. Across the street was a flea bag hotel that the city filled with homeless. I'm not talking a couple rooms.....I mean the entire Hotel! Probably about 80 rooms. The city paid the owner the daily rate for each room, around $125.00 a day Lets do the math... 125x 30 x 80. I get about $300K of my tax dollars monthly for just that one hotel. Mind you this was going on throughout the entire city.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 3:45:54 AM EDT
C'mon now,the landlord only get's to keep a certain % of the take.The rest is for kickbacks.[:|]
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 12:39:46 PM EDT
Another example of how government solutions always end up costing more and creating more havoc for all.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 1:57:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2001 1:59:44 PM EDT by dbrowne1]
Who does your wife (or her group) work for? Lexis, Westlaw, some other legal publication company? ...nevermind. Looks like Lexis based on the cite and the "Core Concepts" at the top. Is that who she works for?
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 6:22:52 PM EDT
Shes with Lexis-Nexis She couldnt stand practicing law --mostly becuase of all the lawyers-- so she went to work for them.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 7:08:45 PM EDT
Westchester County is forced to spend tens of millions of dollars a year to house the homeless in Motels throughout the county. There are dollar limits for permanent housing assistance but there is NO LIMIT for temporary housing. They also have Police onsite 24/7 because there is so much criminal activity going on there. Cool Huh. Mission Statement: "The mission of the Westchester County Department of Social Services is to empower its customers to become independent and to ensure the health, safety and protection of vulnerable adults and children." Customers? WTF do they mean by customers? A large percentage of the "customers" are vacationing in WC from NYC.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 7:36:53 PM EDT
Two years is not temporary. I always thought Westchester was a decent place but this is totally ridiculous --these same customers are probably the ones suing to prevent being kicked off welfare now that the five year limit has been reached by the vast majority of people --now I understand why people get hooked on it. Oddly enough Elmsford is also home to the Psychic reading school right on 119 at 9 next to Petes Saloon, N.Y. State considers this a valid "job training" program and will foot the bill if you wanna help Miss Cleo fleece the trailer trash. Welfare reform my butt figures billary chose this place to live. I hear the range in Courtland was shut down as well Westchester is just becomming the perfect little workers paradise isint it?
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 8:36:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By offctr: ....I hear the range in Courtland was shut down as well Westchester is just becomming the perfect little workers paradise isint it?
View Quote
Wait a minute! I believe they are only closed for a few weeks from Thanksgiving until Mid January. They do this every year. Now unless someone knows something to the contrary, please post.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 9:24:38 PM EDT
No thats what I was wondering A guy the other day told me it was shut down and did not elaborate beyond that. I did not know they shut down from thanksgiving to january My local range shut down for hunting season and reopened a few weeks back and all of southern tier hunting season is over now so I didnt know why they were(still)closed. Thanks.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 12:02:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By offctr: Two years is not temporary.
View Quote
Apparently two years IS forever! The problem is there is almost no permanent housing available that doesn't exceed the housing allowance limit. The motel housing is just the start. The families are entitled to 3 meals a day in a restaurant, medical care, taxis to the home school district for the kiddies etc. The costs for ONE family often exceed $100k a year. The county is under court order to comply. They take the “customers” to court and always lose!.
Top Top