| Barrett Japaning, Inc. v Bialobroda |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09067 [68 AD3d 474] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Barrett Japaning, Inc., Respondent, v Anna Bialobroda,Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Zane and Rudofsky, New York (Edward S. Rudofsky of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 6,2008, to the extent appealed from, enjoining defendant Bialobroda from having personsunrelated to her (other than one roommate) occupy the fifth floor apartment and directing all butone of the coresidents to vacate the premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal fromorder, same court and Justice, entered March 27, 2008, to the extent that order granted plaintiff'smotion for summary injunctive relief, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed inappeal from judgment. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 30, 2006, tothe extent it dismissed Bialobroda's seventh and eight counterclaims, unanimously dismissed,without costs, as untimely taken.
Regardless of whether or not the building is covered by the Multiple Dwelling Law, theso-called roommate law (Real Property Law § 235-f [3]) permits only one occupant in thesubject apartment in addition to the lawful tenant and family. While this statute was not intendedto provide a remedy for landlords (see Capital Holding Co. v Stavrolakes, 242 AD2d240, 243 [1997], affd 92 NY2d 1009 [1998]), the landlord may enforce a lease clausewhere, as here, it is consistent with the statute (see Roxborough Apts. Corp. v Becker,296 AD2d 358 [2002]). There was no evidence that Bialobroda and her roommates constituted anontraditional "family" with a long-term relationship, and characterized by emotional andfinancial commitment and interdependence (see Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d201, 211 [1989]).
Bialobroda's appeal from the 2008 judgment does not bring up for review the 2006 order,since she seeks to challenge only so much of that order as dismissed her seventh and eighthcounterclaims. An appeal from a judgment encompasses any nonfinal determination thatnecessarily affects the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; see Siegel, NY Prac § 530, at910 [4th ed]; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5501.03 [2d ed]). The judgment dealtsolely with Bialobroda's roommate claims, and was not affected by the 2006 rulingdismissing—with [*2]finality (see Burke vCrosson, 85 NY2d 10, 16 [1995])—her counterclaims for breach of warranty ofhabitability and discrimination. Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Renwick, Freedman andRoman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 30869(U).]