Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Godette
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1198-18 |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 22151 |
| Parties | Federal National Mortgage Association, Petitioner, v. Wallace Godette, LOIS GODETTE A/KA/ LOIS C. GODETTE A/K/A LOIS C. ADAMS, LISA GODETTE, ESTELLA RANDALL, "JOHN DOE" AND "JANE DOE" ALL ROOMS, UNIT #3 15 BEEKMAN AVENUE MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK 10553, Respondents. |
| Court | New York City Court |
David A. Gallo, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner
Earl M. Williams, Esq. Attorney for Respondent Lisa Godette
Petitioner commenced this post-foreclosure holdover proceeding in May 2018 seeking to recover the residential premises.
Petitioner now moves for issuance of a Warrant of Eviction.
Respondent Lisa Godette opposes the motion.
On May 14, 2019, Respondents Lois Godette and Lisa Godette entered into a Stipulation of Settlement wherein they agreed to vacate the premises by July 13, 2019. Respondents failed to vacate. A Warrant of Eviction issued on July 24, 2019. On September 3, 2019, respondents filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate the warrant. On September 27, 2019, the court denied the Order to Show Cause and extended the stay on the execution of the warrant until November 8, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the Warrant of Eviction was re-issued. A stipulation of extension was filed thereby extending the Warrant of Eviction until December 23, 2019. Respondents filed an Order to Show Cause in Supreme Court seeking a stay of the Warrant of Eviction. By Decision and Order (J Lefkowitz) dated January 10, 2020, the Order to Show Cause was denied.
The Petitioner states that due to the Covid-19 health crisis the eviction was not completed.
In opposition to the motion, Respondent Godette argues that there is a Supreme Court matter pending to determine the true owner of the property. Counsel, however, has not provided this court with any documentation to support this claim and significantly, has not provided any order from the court staying the landlord tenant proceeding while the "court matter is pending". Counsel further argues that the respondent has suffered a financial hardship during the Covid-19 period and has filed for ERAP assistance. Accordingly, the respondent argues that the Tenant Safe Harbor Act prohibits a court from issuing a warrant of eviction or judgment of possession against a residential tenant or lawful occupant that has suffered a financial hardship during the COVID-19 covered period.
Respondent has raised the affirmative defense of financial hardship under the Tenant Safe Harbor Act 2020. The law provides:
No court shall issue a warrant of eviction or judgment of possession against a residential tenant or other lawful occupant that has suffered a financial hardship during the COVID-19 period (emphasis added).
The legislation prohibits courts from evicting tenants who experienced financial hardship for nonpayment of rent that accrued or became due during the COVID-19 period, March 7 2020, through January 15, 2022. Further, under the COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) (Part BB, Subpart A, section 8 of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2021, as modified by L. 2021, c 417), tenants may apply for rental assistance to satisfy their rental arrears. Once a tenant files an application, an automatic stay is imposed on nonpayment and holdover evictions pending the approval/rejection of the ERAP application. Recently, however, "numerous courts of concurrent jurisdiction have ruled on whether the automatic stay imposed by the filing of an ERAP application can be lifted by the court, and, if so under what circumstances" (Papandrea-Zavaglia v Hernandez-Arroyaye, 2022 NY Slip Op 22109; 2022 NY Misc. LEXIS 1291 [Civ Ct. Kings Co. 2022]). When deciding whether to vacate the stay, courts have been looking at the regulatory status of the premises, the relationship between the parties, the nature of the cause of action, and whether the applicant meets the basic criteria for ERAP assistance (Id. citing Actie v Gregory, 2022 NY Slip Op 50117 (U), 74 Misc.3d 1213 (A) [Civ Ct Kings Co.].
In Kelly v Doe, 2022 NY Slip Op 22077 [Civ Ct. Kings Co. 2022], the trial court vacated an ERAP stay in a post-foreclosure holdover proceeding upon a finding that respondent was not a tenant or lawful occupant since respondent had no contractual obligation to pay rent to petitioner.
In Diamond Ridge Partners LLC v Hanspal, 73 Misc.3d 607 [Dist Ct. Nassau Co. 2021], the court held that none of the respondents, the mortgagor and others, qualified for protection under CEEFPA, either as a tenant or lawful occupant in a post foreclosure holdover proceeding. "A 'tenant' may be defined as 'one who holds or possesses [premises] by any kind of right or title... [or] who has the temporary use and occupation of real property owned by another person (called the landlord), the duration and terms of [the] tenancy being usually fixed by an instrument called a 'lease" (Id. citing Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.). "Lawful occupant" has been described as a "component of the definition of tenant (Id. citing CIT Bank, NA v Schifffman, 36 N.Y.3d 550 [2021]). In making it's ruling the court found that the financial hardship protections could only be afforded to "a person responsible for paying rent... or any other financial obligation under a lease or tenancy agreement. Accordingly the protections of the COVID Declaration would inhere to tenants, but not those who have no financial obligation, such as holdover tenants following a foreclosure, who at most could be considered occupants at "sufferance" if not outright squatters'" (Diamond Ridge Partners LLC v Hanspal, 73 Misc.3d 607, (citing Bibow v Bibow, LT-466-19, 2021, NYLJ LEXIS 765 [Dist Ct. Suffolk Co. July 28, 2021]
Further other courts of concurrent jurisdiction have made findings that have resonated with this court on the problematic nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial