Pacella v. 180 East 79th Street Corp., 63 N.Y.2d 721 (1984)

The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to circumvent the Statute of Frauds in enforcing an oral lease agreement; moreover, rent control laws are not applicable when the landlord-tenant relationship is incidental to the tenant’s status as a shareholder in a cooperative apartment corporation.

Summary

Shareholders in a cooperative apartment building sued the cooperative corporation seeking to prevent the termination of their rental of two maids’ rooms. The plaintiffs claimed promissory estoppel based on oral promises regarding continued occupancy, and argued that the rooms were subject to rent control. The Court of Appeals held that promissory estoppel could not overcome the Statute of Frauds, and that rent control laws did not apply because the landlord-tenant relationship was secondary to their status as shareholders. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that the cooperative could terminate the tenancy.

Facts

The Pacellas owned a residential cooperative apartment at 180 East 79th Street in Manhattan. Since 1979, they rented two rooms in the building for their maids at $50 per month per room, without a written lease. In 1982, the cooperative’s board decided to assign shares to the maids’ rooms and sell them to generate more revenue, soliciting bids from tenant-stockholders. The Pacellas protested but were offered the opportunity to buy the shares for $20,000 per room. Negotiations failed over maintenance costs, and the offer was withdrawn. The board then decided to combine the rooms with others and rent them as a professional office for $1,500 per month, sending the Pacellas a 30-day termination notice.

Procedural History

The Pacellas filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the termination of their tenancy. Special Term initially denied the cooperative’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the maids were necessary parties. The court also stayed the action to allow the cooperative to commence holdover proceedings in Civil Court. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the maids were not indispensable parties, and granted summary judgment to the cooperative, finding no factual or legal basis to preclude such relief. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to preclude the assertion of the Statute of Frauds as a defense to the enforcement of an oral lease.
2. Whether the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 applies to rooms rented by shareholders in a cooperative apartment building.
3. Whether the plaintiffs stated a cause of action for fraud based on the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the disclosure provisions of the Martin Act.

Holding

1. No, because the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to circumvent the Statute of Frauds.
2. No, because the Emergency Tenant Protection Act specifically excludes dwellings owned as a cooperative from its coverage, and the landlord-tenant relationship is incidental to the plaintiffs’ status as shareholders.
3. No, because the plaintiffs failed to allege any injury resulting from the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the Martin Act.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that promissory estoppel could not override the Statute of Frauds, citing Tribune Print. Co. v 263 Ninth Ave. Realty. Regarding rent control, the court noted that the Emergency Tenant Protection Act explicitly excludes cooperative dwellings. The court emphasized that the landlord-tenant relationship was incidental to the Pacellas’ status as shareholders in the cooperative, stating that “any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is clearly incidental to plaintiffs’ status as shareholders in the cooperative apartment corporation.” The court further explained that rent control laws are designed to protect tenants from abusive landlords, a situation inapplicable when the tenant is also a shareholder in the landlord corporation, citing Minton v Domb. Finally, the court dismissed the fraud claim because the Pacellas failed to demonstrate any injury resulting from the alleged violation of the Martin Act, citing Channel Master Corp. v Aluminum Ltd. Sales. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments were without merit.