In a case involving WH NY LLC, the court addressed the discharge of an RPAPL article 7-A administrator.
Initially, due to numerous building-wide violations, the Civil Court appointed NL as the 7-A administrator for the premises owned by WH Properties LLC. WH NY LLC later purchased the property and sought to discharge the administrator, claiming it was prepared to address the violations and presented financial proof of its ability to do so.
However, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the 7-A administrator opposed the motion, arguing that the new owner had not demonstrated the necessary repairs had been made or financial stability for ongoing maintenance. While the Civil Court granted the new owner's motion, on appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed that decision.
The AT2 was over the view that the new owner failed to meet the common law criteria for discharging a 7-A administrator, which requires a showing that the reasons for the appointment no longer exist and that there is a plan for continued maintenance. Additionally, the court found that the enactment of RPAPL 778 (11) ("the charges levied by the City of New York [were paid] in full") – the statute upon which the lower court relied -- did not replace these common law requisites but added to them. Consequently, the order to discharge the 7-A administrator was reversed, and NL remained in place to ensure the necessary repairs and maintenance of the premises were made.
Think they’ll own up to that?
# # #
DECISION
Matter of Commissioner of Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. (WH NY LLC)