STP Assocs. LLC v. Drasser

• Decision Date: 15 December 2011
• Docket Number: LT-000700-11
• Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 52243
• Parties: STP Associates, LLC, Petitioner, v. Nancy Drasser, et al, Respondent(s)
• Court: New York District Court

2011 NY Slip Op 52243

STP Associates, LLC, Petitioner, v.Nancy Drasser, et al, Respondent(s)

LT-000700-11

District Court of Nassau County, First District

Decided on December 15, 2011

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AS FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AS FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AS FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AS FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AS FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Mason & Mason., Attorneys for Petitioner; Frederick C. Kelly, Esq., Attorney for Respondents.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

STP's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Affirmative Defenses/Affidavit/Exhibits (First Group of Proceedings)

STP's Motion in Limine/Affidavit/Exhibits(Second Group of Proceedings)

Respondents' Opposition to STP's Motions and Cross Motion/Affirmation (Combined First and Second Group of Proceedings)

STP's Affirmation in Reply to Respondents' Opposition to STP's Motion and Opposition to Respondents' Cross Motion(s)/Exhibits (Combined First and Second Group of Proceedings)

Respondents' Reply on Cross Motion/Exhibit (Combined First and Second Group of Proceedings)

Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment/Affidavit/Exhibits (Third Group of Proceedings)

STP's Affirmation in Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment/Affidavit/Exhibits (Third Group of Proceedings)

Respondents' Reply and Affirmation in Opposition to Cross Motion

STP's Affirmation in Reply to Respondents' Opposition to Cross Motion(Third Group ofProceedings)

This decision addresses motion practice in connection with twenty-six related summary holdover proceedings.While most of the issues raised by and relief sought in these separately filed motions affect, at least in part, all of the proceedings, these motions initially will be identified and discussed in connection with the specific proceedings to which they relate.In connection with the first group of proceedings ¹, the petitioner, STP Associates, LLC("STP") moves for summary judgment dismissing the respondents' second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh affirmative defenses in their separately but essentially identical filed answers to the petitions on the grounds that such defenses are barred by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and/or stare decisis.STP also moves for an award of sanctions.In connection with the second group of proceedings,² STP moves in limine for an order excluding any evidence, references to evidence, testimony or argument relating to anticipated defenses which are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.In connection with the two above groups of proceedings (involving a total of twenty-three proceedings), those respondents collectively oppose STP's above referenced motions and cross-move for sanctions, for summary judgment dismissing the petitions, and alternatively for a stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR §2201, to consolidate the proceedings pursuant to CPLR §602, and for an order directing STP manager/member, Larry Rush, to appear for deposition.STP submits a reply addressing both of its original motions and also submits opposition to the respondents' cross motion.The respondents in these twenty-three proceedings submit a collective reply on their cross motion.

In connection with the three remaining proceedings,³i.e., the third group of proceedings, those respondents move for consolidation pursuant to CPLR §602, for summary judgment dismissing the petitions, summary judgment on their counterclaims, and alternatively, for discovery pursuant to CPLR §408.STP opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing certain affirmative defenses, to strike the jury demand in the Rappaport proceeding, and for leave to amend the verification of the pleadings.These respondents oppose the cross motion and submit a reply on their original motion.STP submits a reply on its cross motion.

Factual and Procedural Background

The property at issue in these twenty-six related proceedings is the Syosset Mobile Home Park located at 80-16 West Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, New York.STP purchased the property in 2007.The respondents, all mobile home owners, are the remaining tenants of the property.On or about June1, 2007 STP sent each tenant of the property a written lease in which it offered a one-year rental agreement to commence on September 1, 2007.None of the respondents executed the offered lease agreement.On or about September19, 2007 STP sent notices of termination to the respondents.

In November 2007 STP commenced eviction proceedings against the tenants in this Court.In response to those proceedings, a group of tenants (including all of the respondents in the instant proceedings, except for Fromia and Garrett) commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled Amatuzio v. STP Associates, LLP, indexno. 021154/07) (the "first Supreme Court action").Those tenants set forth in their complaint four causes of action.In the first, they sought to void the sale of the property from Hormi Holding to STP based upon an alleged violation of Real Property Law ("RPL")§233(g)(3).In the second cause of action, these tenants sought a court order directing STP to provide to them a six-month notice of change of use prior to commencing eviction proceedings.The third cause of action sought an order directing STP to modify the proposed written lease to include certain terms and conditions as set forth by the plaintiffs.The fourth cause of action alleged that the proposed rent increase by STP violated RPL §233(g)(3) and sought an order directing compliance with the requirements set forth therein.

In addition to filing the first Supreme Court action, those tenants also sought and obtained a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court preventing STP from continuing the holdover proceedings initiated in this Court and preventing this Court from issuing a judgment of eviction.However, the Supreme Court denied those tenants' motion for a preliminary injunction staying the pending holdover proceedings.In denying the tenants' application for a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court determined, among other things, that STP had offered leases to the tenants in compliance with RPL §233.Inasmuch as none of these offered leases were executed, the Supreme Court held that month-to-month tenancies had been created (seeAmatuzio v. STP Assoc., LLC, 2008NYSlip. Op. 30867[U], 2008NY MiscLEXIS 8742[Sup Ct. Nassau County2008]).

The tenants appealed from the order in the first Supreme Court action, and applied for and obtained a further stay of the summary proceedings from the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, pending the determination of their appeal.However, on May 30, 2008, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the tenants agreed to withdraw the appeal.The parties also agreed in such stipulation as follows: (1) STP would retroactively withdraw all previous Notices to Terminate served on the tenancies, retroactively restore the tenancies, and withdraw the pending holdover summary proceedings; (2) STP would serve six month Change of Use notices, pursuant to RPL §233(b)(6), to the tenants prior to commencing a summary holdover proceeding based on a month-to-month tenancy; and (3) the tenants would withdraw the second cause of action in their amended complaint.Pursuant to a further stipulation dated August 4, 2008, the tenants agreed to discontinue the first Supreme Court action with prejudice.

On or about June 11, 2008, STP served a purported "Notice of Proposed Change in Use and Termination of Tenancy" upon the respondents, allegedly pursuant to RPL §233(b)(6), advising them that STP proposed a change in the use of the trailer park and that the tenants' month-to-month tenancies were terminated as of December 31, 2008.⁴In October 2008, STP filed non-payment summary proceedings in this Court.These proceedings were ultimately concluded by either settlement through payment in July 2009,⁵ or by stipulation in September 2009,⁶ pursuant to which the tenants paid approximately 19 months rent of the 23 months' rent claimed due.

In September 2009, STP served change of use notices upon the tenants,⁷ indicating that the respondents' tenancies would be terminated "not earlier than March 31, 2010."On January 26, 2010, STP served notices of termination on all of the respondents advising them that each of their tenancies would terminate on March 31, 2010.

In October 2009, a group of tenants (including all respondents in the first two groups of proceedings except for Mitchell) commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled Drasser v. STP Associates, LLP, indexno. 09/15465 (the "second Supreme Court action").The plaintiffs, in their Amended Complaint, set forth six causes of action as follows: (1) seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are in good standing and entitled to a written lease for a term of at least 12 months on or before October 1, 2009, with certain terms and conditions, including provisions for rent and other charges, consistent with all rules and regulations promulgated by the manufactured park owner prior to the date of the offer, with rent charges identical to the rents currently paid by the tenants; (2) seeking a declaration that the September 2009 Change of Use notices are null, void, and of no effect; (3) declaring that the August 4, 2008 stipulation, to the extent that it discontinued with prejudice the first Supreme Court action, is null, void, and of no effect; (4) permanently enjoining STP from serving any further notices pursuant to RPL §233, without leave of the court, on any of the tenant-plaintiffs or until such time as the Court may determine that STP is in compliance with the requirements of RPL §233(b)(6)(I); and declaring that, pursuant to RPL §233(b)(6), STP may only move forward to evictions based on an actual change in use, not a proposed change in use; (5) seeking...