Kidd v. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 November 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 78602/2019
• Citation: 73 Misc.3d 1223 (A),155 N.Y.S.3d 310 (Table)
• Parties: Angela KIDD, Petitioner, v. Dylan WILLIAMS et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Civil Court

73 Misc.3d 1223 (A)

155 N.Y.S.3d 310 (Table)

Angela KIDD, Petitioner,

v.Dylan WILLIAMS et al., Respondent.

Index No. 78602/2019

Civil Court, City of New York.

Decided on November 23, 2021

For Petitioner: Michael Pontone

For Respondent: Arthur Edwards

Jack Stoller, J.

Angela Kidd, the petitioner in this proceeding ("Petitioner"), commenced this holdover proceeding against Dylan Williams, the respondent in this proceeding ("Respondent"),¹ seeking possession of 1166 Nostrand Avenue, Apt. 2B, Brooklyn, New York ("the subject premises") on the ground of termination of an unregulated tenancy. The parties stipulated to a final judgment that permitted the issuance of a warrant of eviction. Respondent interposed a hardship declaration. Petitioner challenged the hardship declaration. The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 16, 2021.

Background

On October 30, 2020, the parties, both represented by counsel, stipulated to a final judgment of possession, permitted a forthwith issuance of a warrant of eviction, and stayed execution of the warrant through February 28, 2021. Respondent then interposed a hardship declaration pursuant to the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 ("CEEFPA"), L. 2020, c. 381, as amended by L. 2021, c. 417, claiming both a loss of income and health-related hardships. Petitioner moved to challenge the hardship declaration pursuant to L. 2021, c. 417, Part C, Subpart A, § 10 (a).

The trial record

Petitioner testified that she lives in Florida; that she has owned the subject premises for thirty years; that Respondent moved into the subject premises in 2012; that Respondent owes $31,000 in arrears; that that Respondent agreed that he was going to move as of March of 2021; that Respondent told her that he is a real estate broker; that Respondent is also an appraiser and a notary; and that he sold and rented properties and he is in contract with properties.

Petitioner introduced into evidence Respondent's website, which includes his name, his logo, his credentials, and listings. The listings include rentals for $1,650 and $2,000 and sales for $1,000,000, $699,000, and $547,000. Petitioner testified that Respondent is in San Diego on a real estate convention staying at a hotel that costs $254 per night with a guest and that he has been there from November 10, 2021 through the date of the trial.

Petitioner testified on cross-examination that she did not know what commission Respondent earned from the apartments; that the million-dollar listing is in contract and therefore Respondent has not earned a commission yet; that Respondent has about six employees; that she knows their names; that she does not know how they get paid, but they are real estate agents, so they probably get commissions; that she does not know about co-brokers; that she sees Respondent going to work every morning because she has a camera; that she does not know Respondent's income or medical records; and that Respondent was not affected by COVID.

Respondent testified on Petitioner's case that he is in San Diego at a real estate convention expo; that he left on November 10 to get there; that he has been staying at the Manchester Hyatt; that it is being sponsored by a loan officer named Raymond Malieri; that he is not paying for the room, but he is paying for food; that he does not know how much the flight cost; that the website that Petitioner introduced into evidence is indeed his website; that of the properties listed on his website, only one of them sold ("the Sold Property"), and on the Sold Property his commission was only one or two percent rather than five percent because he did not sell it; that he made 1.25% of $551,000 on the sale of the Sold Property; that his website has a "sold listings" bar; that he does not remember if he sold another property listed on his website; that he got commissions for rentals; that an owner of one of those properties rented one herself and he did not make any money for that one; that the website says rented; that another rental listing was also rented by the landlord; that he has worked as an appraiser for twenty years; that this year the real estate market in New York has been some of the most active in New York history; that he has not done one closing; that he gets $350 to $550 per appraisal; that he is a notary public; that he did not buy a vehicle in 2019; that he paid with a credit card and the lender is reimbursing him; and that he has one credit card.

Respondent testified on his own case that no one lives with him now; that he has lived tin the subject premises since 2011; that his monthly rent is $1,075.00; that he is not current in his rent; that he is a real estate broker; that he is self-employed; that he is now in San Diego for a convention; that the convention is for continuing education; that he is responsible for his airfare and his food; that he does not have employees in his business; that he was the co-broker for the sale of the Sold Property; that being a "co-broker" means that his office has the listing and another agency sells the property; that another agent sold the Sold Property; that the selling broker could be different from the listing broker and they have to share the commission; that he earned about 1.25% on the sale of the Sold Property; that the Sold Property closed around April of 2021; that he was involved in a property that closed in August of 2020; that the commission that he earned was 1%, which amounted to about $4,000; that he did not have to share that commission; that those were the only two closings he had; that he has not yet earned a commission for the properties currently listed for $1,000,000 and $699,000; that at one point he was the listing broker for another sale, but they went to contract; that the buyer could not get a mortgage and the seller blamed him and went to another broker; that Respondent's counsel was the attorney on that closing; that he is a licensed real estate appraiser; that he has done about ten appraisals in the last year; that he gets paid between $350 and $550 for an appraisal and $400 for a condominium; that he did not normally do appraisals; that the COVID-19 pandemic slowed down his business; that he has earned $50 a week from his work as a notary public; that his car payment is $787 per month; that his car payments are not current; that his car was repossessed because he could not make the payments; that he borrowed money from someone; that he has a cell phone; that it was disconnected several times in the past year for nonpayment; that he has high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes; that he settled this case last year; that he does not remember how much money he owed; that arrears accrued prior to the onset of the pandemic; that he intended to move; that he wanted a lease, but he was not given a lease; that he did not start looking for a place to move to; that the notation "sold" on his website means that it closed; that the notation "sold" does not necessarily mean that he got the commission; that he is obligated to update the listing if it sells; and that he did not pay use and occupancy because he had to live.

Respondent testified on cross-examination that he did not take a payroll protection loan; that he did not take any aid from the government because he has bad credit and he was not eligible for the loan; that his medical conditions existed prior to the pandemic; that he was taken to Court for nonpayment before the pandemic; that his car was returned to him a week after it was repossessed because he paid a month of the arrears that he owed; that his flight to San Diego was about $500 although he is not sure; that he has a debit card, not a credit card; that his card gives him the option of...