## Facts

- A commercial landlord owned a building at 1165 Broadway in Manhattan and leased multiple units to apparel-related commercial tenants.
- Police executed separate search warrants in different tenant units and allegedly recovered counterfeit trademark apparel and sportswear valued at more than $1,000 from each unit.
- After a request from the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the landlord commenced multiple summary holdover proceedings seeking possession.
- The landlord alleged the tenants used the premises for the illegal manufacture and sale of counterfeit trademark goods, rendering the leases void and permitting eviction under RPL § 231(1) and RPAPL §§ 715(1) and 711(5).
- Tenants moved to dismiss, arguing the statutes were aimed at “moral” or public-health-and-safety wrongs (e.g., prostitution, drugs) and did not reach trademark counterfeiting.

## Issues

1. Whether RPL § 231(1) and RPAPL § 715(1) (and, where applicable, RPAPL § 711(5)) permit eviction when commercial premises are used for the illegal manufacture and sale of counterfeit trademark goods.
2. Whether the landlord’s petitions sufficiently stated a basis for summary holdover proceedings predicated on alleged trademark-counterfeiting activity.

## Decision

- The court denied the tenants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held that trademark counterfeiting constitutes an “illegal trade, manufacture, or other illegal business” within the meaning of RPL § 231(1) and RPAPL §§ 715(1) and 711(5).
- The court allowed the summary holdover proceedings to go forward on the theory that the alleged illegal use voided the leases and entitled the landlord to seek possession.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory phrases authorizing eviction for “any illegal trade, manufacture or other illegal business” are broadly construed and are not limited to vice offenses or conduct directly threatening health, safety, or morals unless the statute so states.
- RPL § 231(1) provides that a lease becomes void when a tenant uses premises for an illegal trade, manufacture, or business, permitting the landlord to re-enter and recover possession.
- RPAPL § 715(1) authorizes a special eviction proceeding to abate illegal business uses of premises and contemplates involvement or requests by public officials, including district attorneys.
- In a landlord–tenant relationship, RPAPL § 711(5) supports summary holdover relief when premises are used for an illegal trade, manufacture, or other illegal business.
- Allegations of substantial quantities and value of counterfeit goods support treating the conduct as an ongoing illegal commercial enterprise for illegal-use eviction purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s illegal-use eviction statutes apply to commercial premises allegedly used for trademark counterfeiting, rejected a limitation to “moral nuisance” offenses, and denied dismissal so the landlord’s holdover proceedings for possession could proceed.


1165 Broadway Corp. v. Dayana of N.Y. Sportswear, Inc., 166 Misc. 2d 939 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1995)