Kristiansen v. Serating, 2022-22097

CourtNew York District Court
Writing for the CourtHON. C. STEPHEN HACKELING, J.D.C.
PartiesIvor Kristiansen, Petitioners v. Lance Serating; DEBRA SERATING; "JOHN" "DOE"; "JANE" "DOE", Respondents.
Docket NumberIndex LT-172-21/HU,2022-22097
Decision Date07 April 2022

Ivor Kristiansen, Petitioners
v.

Lance Serating; DEBRA SERATING; "JOHN" "DOE"; "JANE" "DOE", Respondents.

No. 2022-22097

Index No. LT-172-21/HU

District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

April 7, 2022


TToscani Law Firm, P.C. Richard Toscani, Esq. Attorney f or Petitioners

Lance Serating Debra Serating Pro Se Respondents

HON. C. STEPHEN HACKELING, J.D.C.

The Court scheduled a hearing to ascertain the applicability of any statutory stays to the above captioned summary eviction proceeding. If none existed, the matter was to proceed to trial on the merits. At the hearing held March 12, 2022, the following facts were not disputed:

Uncontested Facts

1. The respondent tenants, Lance Serating and Debra Serating (hereafter "the Seratings" or "tenants") stopped paying rent in February 2020, after taking residence in the subject premises (64 Harrison Drive, East Northport, New York 11731) pursuant to a written 2 year lease dated May 7, 2019, which expired upon its own terms and now exists as a month to month tenancy at $3, 200.00 per month.

2. There exists $60, 800.00 (19 months) of rental arrears running through March, 2022.

3. The landlord Ivor Kristiansen (hereafter "landlord"), commenced this holdover action pursuant to petition dated April 2, 2021 after prior proper service of a ninety (90) day notice of lease termination.

4. The Seratings filed an application for rental relief under New York's Emergency Rental Assistance Program, L.2021, C. 417, Part A § 4. (hereafter, "ERAP") on January 14, 2022. The status of the ERAP application on this date was "not completed" "pending Documents".

5. The landlord does not want any ERAP funding, and refuses to participate in the tenant's application.

Disputed Facts

The lone disputed fact is whether the Seratings are actively prosecuting their ERAP petition in "good faith". See, Barton v. Bixler, 2022 Slip Op 50228(U) (Dist. Ct. Suff. Co. 2022) for this Court's opinion allowing for same. At the eligibility hearing Mr. Serating's' testimony established the following:

a. Mr. Serating uploaded seven (7) documents including
Social Security card number
Photo I.D
Bank Statements
Tax Returns
Confirmation numbers were given by the ERAP Administrating Agency for said documents
B. Mr. Serating initially had difficulty uploading said documents on January 17, 2022, as a result of a problem with utility charges, but gave up on same (the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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