Mangan Realty, LLC v. Anthony

• Decision Date: 19 June 2019
• Docket Number: 68707/18
• Citation: 64 Misc.3d 686,104 N.Y.S.3d 873
• Court: New York Civil Court
• Parties: MANGAN REALTY, LLC, Petitioner v. Wendy Dolly ANTHONY, Respondent-Tenant, "John Doe" & "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants.

64 Misc.3d 686

104 N.Y.S.3d 873

MANGAN REALTY, LLC, Petitioner

v.Wendy Dolly ANTHONY, Respondent-Tenant,

"John Doe" & "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants.

68707/18

Civil Court, City of New York.

Decided on June 19, 2019

For Respondent: Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Attorneys for Respondent, Attn: Andrew Jones, Esq., 424 East 147th Street, 3rd Floor, Bronx, NY 10455

For Petitioner: Todd Rothenberg, Esq., 271 North Avenue, Suite 115, New Rochelle, NY 10801

Shorab Ibrahim, J.

The decision and order on this motion is as follows:

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mangan Realty, LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, ("Petitioner"), commenced this summary holdover proceeding against Wendy Dolly Anthony, the respondent herein, ("Respondent"), seeking possession of the subject premises based on the allegations that "Respondent, his [sic] guests and/or occupants have engaged in conduct constituting nuisance"

The December 6, 2018 Ten Day Notice to Terminate, ("Notice"), states in relevant part, "Since on or about January 24, 2018, you, your guests and/or occupants have engaged in conduct that has infringed upon the rights and safety of your fellow building residents and have degraded their quality of life and their ability to use their respective housing accommodations.Your conduct is in breach of Section 2524.3(b) of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments and in violation of a substantial obligation of your lease agreement, specifically paragraph 17 and 27(g) of said lease."

The Notice lists eleven (11) separate instances of objectionable conduct.

Respondent, represented by counsel, interposed a written answer dated March 11, 2019.Respondent now moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), citingRPAPL § 744, RPL § 227-d,42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c), (9)(B) and (C)(i).

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that the matter must be dismissed because the proceeding "discriminates against Respondent on the basis of her status as a domestic violence survivor."In support of her motion, Respondent submits an affidavit and two (2) temporary orders of protection, both expiring April 16, 2019.Respondent's March 25, 2019 affidavit alleges a romantic relationship with a Moussa Soumare, ("Soumare"), beginning in June 2017; that he moved into the premises in September 2017; that Soumare was emotionally abusive; that Soumare would repeatedly yell and get in fights with other tenants; that Soumare moved out of the apartment in January 2019; that he returned in February 2019 and punched a hole in the wall and that he returned to the apartment again on March 5, 2019.

RPAPL § 744(1) provides that "[a] tenant shall not be removed from possession of a residential unit pursuant to this article because of such person's domestic violence victim status, as defined in section two hundred twenty-seven-d of the real property law.It shall be a defense to a proceeding to recover possession of a residential unit that a landlord seeks such recovery because of a person's domestic violence victim status, and that, but for such status, the landlord would not seek to recover possession.A landlord may rebut such defense by showing that he or she seeks to recover possession of a residential unit because of any other lawful ground."RPL § 227-d provides, "a person is a "domestic violence victim" and possesses "domestic violence victim status" if such person is or has been, or is a parent accompanied by a minor child or children who is or has been, in a situation in which such person or child is a victim of an act that would constitute a violent felony offense as enumerated in section 70.02 of the penal law, or a family offense as enumerated in subdivision one of section eight hundred twelve of the family court act, and such act is alleged to have been committed by a member of the same family or household, as defined in subdivision one of section eight hundred twelve of the family court act."

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction.The court must deem the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.( Leon v. Martinez , 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511[1994] ).In assessing a motion under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one."( Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17[1977] ).Thus, "a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) will fail if, taking all facts alleged as true and according them every possible inference favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law."( Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP , 38 A.D.3d 34, 38, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231[2nd Dept.2006];seeLeon v. Martinez , 84 N.Y.2d at 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ).

Under the limited record before this court, the motion to dismiss must be denied.Neither Respondent's affidavit or the issuance of the two temporary orders of protections, as far as this court can surmise,¹ establish, as a matter of law, Respondent as a "domestic violence victim" as defined by RPL § 227-d.At best, issues of fact are implicated.Respondent may, at trial, offer proof that she is a domestic violence victim.Assuming arguendo that Respondent has established she is a domestic violence victim, she has failed to establish that "but for such status, the landlord would not seek to recover possession."The Notice herein alleges eleven (11) separate items, including multiple instances of threats, and physical violence, directed at other tenants.It may be that the otherwise lawful reasons for the eviction as described in the Notice will be proven as having been created by the alleged abuser.If so, Respondent's defense under RPAPL § 744 may prove successful.However, this court will not foreclose Petitioner from proceeding on this matter, commenced to protect the health and safety of other tenants, on the sparse record before it.

Respondent primarily relies on KDG Albany, LP v. Dixon , (62 Misc. 3d 557, 89 N.Y.S.3d 835[City Ct., Albany 2018] ), in support of the motion.The court notes that in Dixon there was a fully developed record after trial .The Dixon court determined, after trial , that the tenant and the alleged...