A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that allows tenants to recover attorneys' fees in holdover proceedings. This decision, made on October 27, 2026, affects how landlords and tenants navigate legal disputes over rental agreements. The case, titled 207-209 W. 107th St., LLC v. De La Cruz, highlights the rights of tenants to seek legal fees even in light of recent legislative changes.
The ruling came after 207-209 West 107th Street, LLC, the landlord, appealed a decision from the Civil Court of New York City. The Civil Court had previously granted attorneys' fees to Orlando De La Cruz, the tenant, after he successfully defended against a holdover proceeding initiated by the landlord. This case underscores the ongoing complexities in landlord-tenant relationships and the legal interpretations surrounding them.
The dispute arose when the landlord sought to evict De La Cruz, claiming he had violated terms of the lease. De La Cruz countered with a succession defense, arguing that he had the right to remain in the apartment. The case eventually reached the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, where the court had to decide whether the tenant could recover attorneys' fees under the lease agreement and applicable laws.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to award attorneys' fees to De La Cruz. The judges noted that the lease agreement contained provisions that allowed for such fees, stating, "Having prevailed on their succession defense in this holdover proceeding, Civil Court properly awarded attorneys' fees to respondents." This ruling emphasizes the importance of the lease's language in determining the rights of both parties.
The court also addressed the landlord's argument that recent amendments to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) limited the ability of tenants to claim attorneys' fees. The judges clarified that the amendment to the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) did not eliminate the tenant's right to counterclaim for attorneys' fees. They explained, "Properly construed, RPAPL § 702 (1) is a limitation on what can be recovered as 'rent' in a summary proceeding. This provision does not preclude a tenant from counterclaiming for attorneys' fees."
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the longstanding right of tenants to seek attorneys' fees in summary proceedings. The court highlighted that this right has been in place for over fifty years and is commonly utilized in housing court cases. The judges noted that if the legislature had intended to remove this right, it would have done so explicitly.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for future landlord-tenant disputes, particularly in New York City, where housing issues frequently arise. Tenants may feel more empowered to assert their rights in legal proceedings, knowing they can seek reimbursement for legal costs if they prevail. This decision may also prompt landlords to reconsider their approach to evictions and lease agreements.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the interpretation of the HSTPA in relation to attorneys' fees. By distinguishing between the definitions of "rent" and the right to attorneys' fees, the court has provided guidance on how these laws interact. This clarity is crucial for both landlords and tenants as they navigate the complexities of housing law in New York.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the landlord will appeal this decision to a higher court. The court filing did not specify any plans for further appeals. However, the ruling could influence ongoing discussions about housing laws and tenant protections in New York, especially as lawmakers continue to address housing stability and tenant rights.
Overall, the court's decision in 207-209 W. 107th St., LLC v. De La Cruz serves as a reminder of the importance of lease agreements and the rights of tenants in legal disputes. It reinforces the notion that tenants can seek legal recourse and recover costs when they successfully defend against eviction attempts.
Read Next
Court rules on fraudulent conveyance claims in Sigler case
Court reverses conviction in child endangerment case
New York Court of Appeals rules on plea challenge case
Court denies Ifeoma Ezekwo's petition for writ of mandamus
Hawaii court remands spousal support case for further review
Court affirms denial of attorney's fees in Garcia v. Ades










