885 Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v. Goddard

Citation53 N.Y.S.3d 794,55 Misc.3d 74
Parties 885 PARK AVENUE BROOKLYN, LLC, Respondent, v. Daniel GODDARD, Appellant, and Javier Maldonado Borges, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Undertenants.
Decision Date10 February 2017
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

55 Misc.3d 74
53 N.Y.S.3d 794

885 PARK AVENUE BROOKLYN, LLC, Respondent,
v.
Daniel GODDARD, Appellant,
and
Javier Maldonado Borges, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Undertenants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.

Feb. 10, 2017.


53 N.Y.S.3d 794

Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York City (Robert E. Sokolski of counsel), for appellant.

Rivkin Radler LLP, New York City (Joshua M. Tare and Henry Mascia of counsel), for respondent.

53 N.Y.S.3d 795

PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.

Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Marcia J. Sikowitz, J.), dated March 13, 2013 and August 28, 2013, respectively, and from a final judgment of the same court (Lydia C. Lai, J.) entered March 6, 2014. The order dated March 13, 2013, among other things, amended the caption and directed tenant to pay interim use and occupancy in a holdover summary proceeding. The final judgment, entered pursuant to the order dated August 28, 2013 granting landlord's motion for summary judgment and denying tenant's cross motion to compel discovery, awarded landlord possession and the principal sum of $10,590.

55 Misc.3d 75

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated March 13, 2013 and August 28, 2013, respectively, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

The appeal from the order dated March 13, 2013 is dismissed as abandoned, as tenant's brief raises no issue with respect

55 Misc.3d 76

thereto. The appeal from the order dated August 28, 2013 is dismissed, as the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the final judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 [1976] ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order dated August 28, 2013 are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the final judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

In this holdover proceeding, landlord alleges that tenant held over after the expiration of a non-regulated market lease, and tenant alleges that he is rent stabilized. Landlord moved for summary judgment on the ground that the building in which the subject apartment is located is exempt from rent stabilization due to a substantial rehabilitation, which had been commenced in 1999 and had converted the building from purely commercial space into a residential building (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11[e] ). Tenant cross-moved to compel landlord to comply with a "prior discovery order." The Civil Court granted landlord's motion and denied tenant's cross motion. A final judgment was subsequently entered awarding landlord possession and the principal sum of $10,590.

Pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.11(e), certain housing accommodations in "buildings substantially rehabilitated as family units on or after January 1, 1974" are exempt from rent stabilization. In a case where the landlord had demonstrated that it had converted a "purely commercial space into an almost purely residential space, creating 23 residential units when none existed," the building was exempt from rent stabilization based upon a substantial rehabilitation (22 CPS Owner LLC v. Carter, 84 A.D.3d 456, 457, 923 N.Y.S.2d 450 [2011] ). Contrary to tenant's contention on appeal, landlord submitted, in support of its motion, substantial proof of its claim that the property had been a commercial building that had been converted, by landlord, into a residential building between 1999 and 2003, and that a residential certificate of occupancy had been issued in 2005. Indeed, the unrebutted proof submitted by landlord demonstrates that, when landlord's predecessor in interest purchased the building, it consisted of empty warehouse space lacking even the means to access the space above the ground floor, let alone building-wide systems necessary for residential occupancy. Tenant's submissions do not raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the status of the building as a commercial building with no residential units

55 Misc.3d 77

prior to 1974 and its conversion into a residential building beginning in 1999. Nor is there any merit to tenant's argument, raised for the first time in his

53 N.Y.S.3d 796

reply brief, that he had demonstrated that his unit was not part of the alleged substantial rehabilitation, and therefore that his apartment was subject to rent stabilization (see Matter of 12th Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 303 A.D.2d 328, 757 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2003] ).

Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.11(e)(8) allows, but does not require, a landlord to apply for "an advisory prior opinion that the building will qualify for exemption from rent regulation on the basis of substantial rehabilitation, based upon the owner's rehabilitation plan." Operational Bulletin 95–2 also allows, and even encourages, owners to apply for an advisory prior opinion, and states that any DHCR final order determining that a building is exempt from rent regulation on the basis of substantial rehabilitation will be binding on the entire building. However, there is no support for tenant's argument that such a determination is required as proof of the building's exemption from rent stabilization.

Contrary to tenant's contention, under the circumstances, the Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining landlord's successive motion for summary judgment (see American Equity Ins. Co. v. A & B Roofing, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 762, 763, 965 N.Y.S.2d 147 [2013] [reversing the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to indemnify a defendant in an underlying action, and granting the motion on the ground that the "subsequent motion for summary judgment was substantively valid, and the granting of it would have furthered the ends of justice"] ). Landlord's motion, which set forth facts demonstrating that the subject building is exempt from rent stabilization pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.11(e), is substantively valid, and we agree with the Civil Court's implicit determination that the granting of the motion would "further the ends of justice while eliminating an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts" (Detko v. McDonald's Rests. of N.Y., 198 A.D.2d 208, 209, 603 N.Y.S.2d 496 [1993] ).

Tenant also argued, before the Civil Court and on appeal, that landlord's motion should have been denied because discovery remains outstanding. On appeal, tenant specifically argues that, by order dated August 20, 2012, the Civil Court

55 Misc.3d 78

"granted Tenant leave to serve his deposition notice and document demand ..." Indeed, unlike in an action where full disclosure of matter that is material and necessary is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • 37-20 104th St. v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • July 22, 2022
    ...N.Y.S.3d 116 [2016] ; 22 CPS Owner LLC v. Carter , 84 A.D.3d 456, 457, 923 N.Y.S.2d 450 [2011] ; 885 Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v. Goddard , 55 Misc. 3d 74, 76, 53 N.Y.S.3d 794 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] ). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the......
  • 37-20 104th St. v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • July 22, 2022
    ...... credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park. Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499 [1983];. ... Owner LLC v Carter, 84 A.D.3d 456, 457 [2011]; 885. Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v Goddard, 55 Misc.3d 74, 76. ......
  • Myrtle Ave. Shop, Inc. v. Sherhan, 2016-3000 Q C
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • June 14, 2019
    ...Holding, LLC , 95 AD3d 1108 [2012] ; Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Timm , 237 AD2d 586 [1997] ; 885 Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v. Goddard , 55 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] ).The decision whether to consider a successive summary judgment motion rests within the......
  • Meserole A-B 81-93 Equities Corp. v. Russo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • January 3, 2020
    ...basis for denying the motion" ( Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp. , 45 AD3d 736, 737 [2007] ; see 885 Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v Goddard , 55 Misc 3d 74, 78 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] ). Here, tenant failed to submit any evidence that the alleged "missing witness" would ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT