Sohn v. Calderon

• Decision Date: 11 December 1986
• Citation: 125 A.D.2d 227,509 N.Y.S.2d 32
• Parties: , 126 A.D.2d 503 Pinky SOHN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lucrecia CALDERON, et al., and New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 32

509 N.Y.S.2d 32

125 A.D.2d 227, 126 A.D.2d 503

Pinky SOHN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lucrecia CALDERON, et al., and New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Dec. 11, 1986.

A. Katz, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

J.C. Nisley, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before SANDLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, MILONAS and KASSAL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.), entered August 6, 1986, which, inter alia, stayed defendants' Civil Court proceeding to compel the restoration of essential services and repairs and set down for immediate trial plaintiff's declaratory judgment action seeking permission to withdraw the units of the subject building from the rental market, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the stay of the Civil Court proceeding upon the commencement of the "immediate trial" of the declaratory judgment action on or before February 23, 1987, in the event said condition is not complied with, the stay of the Civil Court proceeding is vacated, and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the motion court that an expeditious trial should be had of the landlord's claim that he should be permitted either to withdraw the units from the rental market under section 54(d)of the Rent Stabilization Code and sections 59(a)and 59(a)of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, or to demolish the subject building pursuant to section 54(d)of the Rent Stabilization Code and section 58(a)and 58(b) of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations. In accordance with the view that an immediate trial was warranted, the matter had been set down one week later for trial and the tenant defendants' Civil Court proceeding stayed. This appeal and a stay of the motion court's order intervened. Since we do not believe that the Civil Court proceeding--and the tenants' rights to restoration of services and repairs, if warranted--should be deferred indefinitely, we attach a time limitation for the commencement of the trial of the declaratory judgment action.