Ocean Bay Rad LLC v. Tolliver

• Decision Date: 19 October 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. L & T 57536/19
• Citation: 73 Misc.3d 800,156 N.Y.S.3d 702
• Parties: OCEAN BAY RAD LLC, Petitioner, v. Gregory TOLLIVER, Respondents.
• Court: New York Civil Court

73 Misc.3d 800
156 N.Y.S.3d 702

OCEAN BAY RAD LLC, Petitioner,
v.
Gregory TOLLIVER, Respondents.

Index No. L & T 57536/19

Civil Court, City of New York, Queens County.

Decided on October 19, 2021

Slochowsky & Slochowsky, LLP, 26 Court Street, Suite 304, Brooklyn, New York 11242, jcannavo@ssrelaw.com, Attorneys for Petitioner — Ocean Bay Rad

Queens Legal Services, Attn: Alex Jacobs, Esq., 89-00 Sutphin Boulevard, 5th Floor, Jamaica, New York 11435, ajacobs@lsnyc.org, Attorneys for Respondent — Gregory Tolliver

Sergio Jimenez, J.

73 Misc.3d 801

The decision and order on petitioner's motion for permission to annul the stay set forth by the filing of a hardship declaration and for any other relief is as follows.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This holdover proceeding was commenced in April of 2019. Ocean Bay Rad, LLC (petitioner) seeks possession of the premises located at 51-49 Akmeda Avenue, Apartment 6E in Arverne, New York 11691 from Gregory Tolliver (respondent). The proceeding was resolved by stipulation on August 13, 2019 whereby respondent agreed to vacate the premises by a date certain. Respondent then sought extensions of time by orders to show cause. The last order to show cause overlapped with the pausing of most court functions due to the global pandemic health crisis. Eventually, the proceeding was put back on the calendar pursuant to a motion by petitioner seeking to enforce their judgment and warrant. Respondent was connected with

156 N.Y.S.3d 703

counsel and a hardship declaration was filed. Petitioner's instant motion seeks to invoke Section 10 of L. 2021 Ch. 417 (CEEFPA as amended September 2, 2021) challenging the stay of the proceeding claiming that respondent may not avail themselves of its protections. On October 18, 2021 the court held argument after the motion had been fully briefed and reserved decision.

Argument

Petitioner asserts that respondent is an unauthorized occupant, in fact, they claim so on the caption itself, and that, as such, CEEFPA as amended does not afford this classification of

73 Misc.3d 802

respondent the protections that are afforded to tenants. Petitioner provides two similar lower court decisions to support their position: Kalikow Family Partnership, L.P. v. "John Doe" from Queens County Civil Court and Bibow v. Bibow from the District Court of New York, Third District, Suffolk County. Kalikow Family Partnership, L.P. v. "John Doe," 72 Misc. 3d 1172, 152 N.Y.S.3d 283 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co., 2021) ; Bibow v. Bibow , 72 Misc. 3d 1212(A), 150 N.Y.S.3d 232 (Suffolk Dis. Ct. 2021). Respondent opposes claiming that the law has changed but does not provide specifics as to how outside of a blanket statement claiming that the coverage has been expanded to include the respondent. Petitioner counters that the amount of time between the stipulated to vacate date and the present has divested respondent from being able to make claims about his relationship with the petitioner.

The...