Kucker & Bruh, LLP: Patrick K. Munson

Patrick K. Munson

Mr. Munson is a partner in the K&B firm. He is a senior attorney who specializes in real estate law, landlord and tenant law, real estate litigation and commercial litigation. He was an attorney at the CAB and the DHCR before entering private practice. Mr. Munson joined Kucker & Bruh, LLP in 1986, and became a partner in 1990. He has been highly successful in the area of rent regulation and rent control, and has been responsible for ground breaking court decisions against the DHCR. Because of his broad knowledge and many years of experience, Mr. Munson is a leading authority with respect to rent stabilization and rent control in New York City. In recent years, he has utilized his vast experience and expertise as an appellate lawyer to write many effective appellate briefs concerning landlord-tenant law issues. Mr. Munson has been highly successful in both the Appellate Division and the Appellate Term of the New York Supreme Court. Thanks to its superb appellate practice, Kucker & Bruh, LLP is at the forefront in advocating issues which are critical to commercial and residential landlords in the appellate courts which interpret New York laws.

Mr. Munson is admitted to practice before all of the trial courts and appellate courts in the state of New York. In addition, he is admitted to the bar of each of the following federal courts: the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Reported cases in which Mr. Munson has appeared include: Friscia v Lem Lee 13th Limited Partnership, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1046 (1st Dep't 2007) [dismissal of action in which tenant attempted to avoid the 4-year statute of limitations on rent overcharge complaints filed with the DHCR by commencing a lawsuit in which he relied on evidence going back beyond four years; court held: the DHCR has primary jurisdiction over rent overcharge complaints and a stabilized tenant cannot circumvent the agency's jurisdiction by starting a court proceeding]; Kerin v Kaufman, 296 A.D.2d 336 (1st Dep't 2002) [prevailed on the interpretation of an employment contract dispute]; Essex House v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 294 A.D.2d 437 (2nd Dept 2002); Cecilia v Irizary, 292 A.D.2d 557 (2nd Dep't 2002) [interpretation of the Rent Stabilization Law limiting rent overcharge complaints to four years, overturned the Appellate Term]; Levin v 117 Ltd., 291 A.D.2d 304 (1st Dep't 2002) [obtained a determination that tenants were not entitled to an easement of light and air]; 25 Jay St. Tenants Association v 25 Jay Street, LLC, 290 A.D.2d 503 (2nd Dep't 2002); Joseph v Roldan, 289 A.D.2d 243 (2nd Dep't 2001) [court upheld finding that tenant not entitled to rent control protection]; Missionary Sisters v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 283 A.D. 284 (1st Dep't 2001) [overturned determination of the DHCR that tenant entitled to continue preferential rent in renewal leases]; Bell v Fran Pearl Equities, 280 A.D.2d 401 (1st Dep't 2001); West Village Assocs v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 A.D.2d 111 (1st Dep't 2000); 221 W. 16th Realty v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 A.D.2d 81 (1st Dep't 2000) [building-wide rent restructuring following pay off of public financing]; Hakim v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 273 A.D.2d 3 (1st Dep't 2000) [DHCR reversed on finding of decreased services]; Sterling Apts v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 269 A.D.2d 266 (1st Dep't 2000); Joseph Peppie Realty v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, (1st Dep't 1999); Bel Air Leasing v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 259 A.D.2d 542 (2nd Dep't 1999); DeVito v Lynch, 258 A.D.2d 582 (2nd Dep't 1998) [prior owner of the building with "sweetheart" lease agreement found not entitled to rent stabilization protection and evicted]; Mark Greenberg Real Estated v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 258 A.D.2d 313 (1st Dep't 1999); 1504 Assocs v Roldan, 258 A.D.2d 302 (1st Dep't 1999); Brussels Leasing v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 256 A.D.2d 406 (2nd Dep't 1998); Gebhardt v Ellis, 256 A.D.2d 22 (1st Dep't 1998); Hampton Mgmt v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 255 Ad2d 261 (1st Dep't 1998); Kansas Leasing, Ltd v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 255 A.D.2d 384 (2nd Dep't 1998); Corry Assocs v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 254 A.D.2d 286 (2nd Dep't 1998); Cooper Realty v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 240 A.D.2d 665 (2nd Dep't 1997); Chios Realty v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 239 A.D.2d 497 (2nd Dep't 1997); and H & H Equities v Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 235 A.D.2d 360 (1st Dep't 1997).

Legal Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising

Kucker & Bruh, LLP – 747 Third Avenue – New York, NY 10017 – (212) 869-5030 – (212) 944-5818 Fax