Sino Realty Inc. v. Wai Wah Yung, Index No. 79704/2012

CourtNew York Civil Court
Writing for the CourtKaren May Bacdayan, J.
Citation2022 NY Slip Op 22162
Decision Date20 May 2022
Docket NumberIndex No. 79704/2012
PartiesSino Realty Inc., Petitioner v. Wai Wah Yung, Respondent-Tenant, YEE LING LAW, YEE LING YUNG, KAM SAU YUNG, KING YIM YUNG, SIU LAN LUNG Respondents-Undertenants.

2022 NY Slip Op 22162

Sino Realty Inc., Petitioner

Wai Wah Yung, Respondent-Tenant,


Index No. 79704/2012

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County

May 20, 2022

Kolodny, P.C. (Peter Kolodny, Esq.) for the petitioner

Take Root Justice (Claribel Morales, Esq.), for the proposed intervenor, Shuet Lan Yung

Karen May Bacdayan, J.

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), [1] of the papers considered in review of this motion:

Papers / Numbered

Order to Show Cause, annexed Affidavits, and Exhibits (A - C) 1

Opposition to Motion, and Exhibits (A - I) 2

Affirmation in Reply, and Exhibits (A - G) 3

After oral argument on the record the decision and order on this motion to intervene Shuet Lan Yung in this proceeding is as follows:


This nonprimary residence holdover proceeding was commenced in 2012 by Sino Realty Inc. ("petitioner") against Wai Wah Yung, the rent stabilized respondent-tenant, and Yee Ling Law, Yee Ling Yung, Kam Sau Yung, and King Yim Yung, respondents-undertenants. [2]

The parties stipulated to a final judgment of possession as against the respondent and respondent-undertenants in February 2013, and the warrant issued forthwith. Execution of the warrant was stayed until respondent, Kam Sau Yung, the family's matriarch, either vacated or passed away, whichever event occurred first. In 2018, petitioner brought an order to show cause seeking access to the premises for extermination and elimination of noxious odors, a determination that Kam Sau Yung had vacated the premises, or, in the alternative setting the matter down for a hearing on whether Kam Sau Yung was deceased, and vacating the stay on the execution of the warrant.

By decision and order dated October 31, 2018, the Hon. Daniele Chinea granted petitioner's motion to execute the warrant of eviction, but stayed execution through November 30, 2018 to allow for the remaining respondent in possession "Siu Lan Yung [who had been substituted the "Doe" herein] and her sister [Shuet Lan Yung] who is not a party to this action and took possession after entry of the stipulation of settlement dated February 1, 2013 [to vacate]."

Shuet Lan Yung ("movant" or "Yung") who first appeared in this proceeding in 2018 as an unnamed occupant seeking additional time to vacate the premises, obtained two more stays of execution of the warrant by stipulations dated December 12, 2018 and March 1, 2019 resolving orders to show cause. [3] In a "so ordered "stipulation dated March 1, 2019, executed by movant and Siu Yan Yung, the parties agreed that "[m]ovants shall vacate the premises on or before March 30, 2019 TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE." (Petitioner's opposition, exhibit G.) The stipulation further provided, "[m]ovants shall not and may not make any further applications to the [c]ourt by order to show cause or otherwise for any further stay of execution of the warrant." Despite this restriction to which movant agreed, the Hon. Michelle Schreiber signed the order to show cause seeking to stay execution of the warrant. However, on April 15, 2019, the same judge denied the request for a stay "for the reasons stated on the record [t]here is no basis to extend the time for respondents to vacate and time has been extended several times already." The April 15, 2019 decision and order was appealed to the Appellate Term and denied on June 6, 2019. (petitioner's attorney's affirmation in opposition at 18; exhibit I of opposition.)

Thereafter, Shuet Lan Yung obtained counsel and moved by order to show cause to intervene in this proceeding, [4] for time to answer to assert a colorable claim of succession rights as she had resided in the apartment for two years prior to her brothers vacatur in 1995 or 1996, or further staying execution of the warrant for good cause. [5]

Yung sets forth her case in two untranslated affidavits. [6] Yung is 69 years old, single, and has a limited income. (Yung affidavit in support of June 18, 2019 order to show cause at 1.) Yung states that, upon information and belief, her brother, Wai Wah Yung, the tenant of record, signed a vacancy lease in 1982. (Id. at 12.) She has lived in the subject premises since 1986. (Id. at 10.) Her brother moved out of the premises in 1995 or 1996. (Id. at13.) Yung and her mother continued to reside in the premises after the tenant of record's vacatur. (Id. at14.) While movant states that she was aware of the February 13, 2013 stipulation, she did not sign it because she "knew the contents were untrue." (Id. at 18.) Her attorney reiterates this in his reply affirmation, but goes one step further: "Although she was aware [that] the stipulation contained untrue statements and would result in a loss of rights, Ms. Yung did not feel compelled to sign the stipulation as she was not a named party in the proceeding, [and] was not required to do so."

Attached to Yung's reply papers are several exhibits purporting to demonstrate a colorable claim of succession rights to the apartment based on receipt of documents at the subject premises. Exhibit A is a lease signed by Wai Wah Yung on September 7, 2007 (despite the uncontroverted fact that...

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