W54-7 LLC v. Perrin

• Decision Date: 14 May 2020
• Docket Number: Index 161212/18,11499
• Parties: W54-7 LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Christopher Scott PERRIN also known as Scott Perrin, et al., Defendants–Respondents, John Doe, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

183 A.D.3d 448
121 N.Y.S.3d 863 (Mem)

W54-7 LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Christopher Scott PERRIN also known as Scott Perrin, et al., Defendants–Respondents,

John Doe, et al., Defendants.

11499
Index 161212/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: MAY 14, 2020

Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills, (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for appellant.

David Ng & Associates, PLLC, New York (David Ng of counsel), for respondents.

Richter, J.P., Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.) entered August 1, 2019, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that plaintiff's claims were precluded under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel by the 1984 order of the New York City Civil Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), in which it was determined that defendant Scott Perrin's father, Forrest Perrin, was the tenant of both apartments, which were intended to be occupied jointly as a single residence, and because the factors for determining whether nonadjacent apartments may be occupied as a single residence were otherwise satisfied (see Sharp v. Melendez , 139 A.D.2d 262, 531 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 1988], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 707, 539 N.Y.S.2d 300, 536 N.E.2d 629 [1989] ).

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, there were no facts presented to the motion court that would constitute a change in circumstances or a basis for holding that plaintiff was not in privity with the prior landlord to bar "redundant litigation" under the doctrine of res judicata ( Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez , 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 [1979] ) or collateral estoppel ( 52 Riverside Realty Co. v. Ebenhart , 119 A.D.2d 452, 453, 500 N.Y.S.2d 259 [1st Dept. 1986] ). Similarly, plaintiff cannot deny constructive notice of Scott Perrin's rights as an occupant of the apartments from before plaintiff purchased the building in 1995, particularly given that plaintiff recognized that Perrin properly succeeded to the tenancy of both apartments in 2014 ( id. at 453, ...