Jacob Marion, LLC v. Jones

• Decision Date: 30 January 2019
• Docket Number: 2016–04364,Index No. 512822/15
• Citation: 168 A.D.3d 1043,93 N.Y.S.3d 120
• Parties: JACOB MARION, LLC, Appellant, v. Joann JONES, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 1043

93 N.Y.S.3d 120

JACOB MARION, LLC, Appellant,

v.Joann JONES, et al., Respondents.

2016–04364

Index No. 512822/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 23, 2018

January 30, 2019

Leon I. Behar, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.

Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew A. Ortiz of counsel), for respondents.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an interim award for the defendants' use and occupancy of the premises, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion without prejudice and with leave to renew at a nonpayment proceeding; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a rent-stabilized apartment building located in Brooklyn.The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, residents of three separate rent-stabilized apartments, seeking to remove them on the ground that their tenancies are invalid.The defendants filed an answer in which they asserted various affirmative defenses, alleging, among other things, a landlord-tenant relationship,failure to state a cause of action, and that the action was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.The affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel were based on determinations of the Civil Court, Kings County, in July and August 2015, that the subject premises are subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and, in effect, that the defendants' tenancies are protected thereunder.Prior to discovery in this action, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), and, upon dismissal, for summary judgment on the complaint.

Initially, even assuming, as the plaintiff contends, that the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review, this Court may affirm an order for reasons other than those relied upon by the Supreme Court(seeMatter of Boucher v. Carriage House Realty Corp. , 105 A.D.3d 951, 952, 962 N.Y.S.2d 718;County of Suffolk v. Caccavalla , 227 A.D.2d 511, 513–514, 642 N.Y.S.2d 942 ).

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' affirmative defenses lack merit as a matter of law, as required under CPLR 3211(b)(seeGonzalez v. Wingate at Beacon , 137 A.D.3d 747, 747, 26 N.Y.S.3d 562;Bank of N.Y. v. Penalver , 125 A.D.3d 796, 797, 1 N.Y.S.3d 825 ).With respect to the defendants' affirmative defense alleging failure to state a cause of action, "[n]o motion ... lies under CPLR 3211(b) to strike th[is] defense ... as this amounts to an endeavor by the plaintiff to test the sufficiency of his or her own claim"( Mazzei v. Kyriacou , 98 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 951 N.Y.S.2d 557[internal quotation marks omitted];seeButler v. Catinella , 58 A.D.3d 145, 151, 868 N.Y.S.2d 101 ).We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to dismiss the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel.Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy"( O'Brien v. City of Syracuse , 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158;seeHighlands Ctr., LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 149 A.D.3d 919, 921, 53 N.Y.S.3d 321 ).Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, a narrower species of res judicata, "precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same"( Ryan v. New York Tel. Co. , 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487;seeHighlands Ctr., LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 149 A.D.3d at 921, 53 N.Y.S.3d 321 ).

Here, although the plaintiff asserts that no tenancy ever existed, which is contrary to the position it maintained in the prior holdover proceedings in the Civil Court(seeJacob Marion, LLC v. "Doe" , 58 Misc.3d 155(A), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 50191[U], *2, 2018 WL 894796[App. Term, 2d Dept., 11th & 13th Jud. Dists.] ), the true nature of the plaintiff's claim in this action is that the defendants are not tenants protected under the Rent Stabilization laws.This, however, is exactly what the plaintiff contended in the prior holdover proceedings which were dismissed by the Civil Court.Therefore, the...