479 Hicks St. LLC v Rial

2024 NY Slip Op 31993(U)

June 5, 2024

Supreme Court, Kings County

Docket Number: Index No. 528480/2021

Judge: Peter P. Sweeney

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 528480/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

1 of 4

SUPREME COURT OF THE S fATE OF NEW YORK 

COUNTY OFKlNGS: PART 7 

·, --------- .. ---- ·. . ---- .· . ------------- -------------------. -- . ------X 

479HICKS STREET LLC, 

Pfai11tiff. 

-againstMARUJA RIAL CHRISTINA JAL NICKAS, 

Defendants. 

--------------------- ·--. -----. ------- . ------- .--. ---. ------ ··------x .. 

Index No.: 5 2 848 0/2021 

Motion Date: 6~3-24 

Mot. Seq. No.: 6 

DEC IS I ON/ORD ER 

Upon the follo,,ving pap -rs, listed on NYSCEF as docui11ent num.bers 117-123 ,verc read 

on this motion: 

The plaintiff: 4 79 HICK1 STREET LLC, moves to re-argue its prior :motion for summary 

j udgmen:t for the relief demandtjd in the complaint; which was deriied, as well as defendant's, 

MARUJA RIAL's prior cross~Jotionforan order·ctismissing the action pui-suant to 9 NYCRR 

. . i . . . 2204.3, which was granted. Upbn re-argument, plaintiff seeks an order denying the cross-motion I . . 

I 

'and granting plaintiff's motion·for summary judgment 

I 

i 

The plaintiff, 479 Hicks [Street. LLC, the O1⁄2ner of a residential building located at 4 79 I 

Hicks Street,. Brooklyn .. NewY~rk, ctmmtenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that ' . 

the defendant Maruja Rial is not a primat'y resident of apartment 1 R of the building and seeks to 

i 

eject her from the prerniscs, Th~ plaintiff previously moved for sl1111maryjudgment. In response I 

to the motion; the defendant cro'Fs-moved to dismiss the action pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2204.1, 

Plaintitrs motion ,vas denied, 41d defendant's cross-motion was granted. In theOrder granting 

' the cross-motio11, the Coutt stat¢d that 9 NYCRR 2204.3 provides as follows: I 

I . 

{a) Et,::cept ,vhere the ground forremoval or eviction of 

a t~Iiimt ~s nonpa~m;ent of rent, no te~ant shall be removed oi; 

evicted from a h<;)usmg accommodation by court process, and no 

action or procee¥n.g shall he commenced for .sllch purpose upon 

antofthe groun~s stated i11 section 2204.2 ofthis .. Part, unless and 

until the land lorq. shall have given written notice to the tenant and 

to the Division df Housing and Comm unity Renewal, Office. of 

RentAdminisftation, Gertz Plaza, 92~31 Union HalJ Street; 

J airi aka, N e,v Yo rkl 1433 as hereinafter provided. (emplms i,\' · 

,ulded). I 

! 

[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 528480/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

2 of 4

(b) E,ery such notic.e to -atenant to vacate or su1Tender 

possession ofa h, usingacco11.miodation shall state the ground 

under section 22 4.2 ofthis Part upotl which the landlord relies for 

removal or evicti n bfthe tenmit, the facts riecessary to establish 

the existence of s ich ground, and the date when the tenant is 

required to surre~der possessi011. 

i 

(c) \\tithin48 hours after the notice is served upon the 

tenant, anexact c )PY thereof, together with a11 affidavit of service, 

shal I be tiled wit~ the Division. of Housing and Community 

Renewal Office!of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza 92-31 

Union Hall Sfre t ,Jamaica New York 11433. In computing 

such 48-ho1;1r per .od, ~my intervening Saturday, Sunday c)r legal 

. holiday shall 6¢ roded (empbasis Mde,0 

fhe Court held that the prov1S10ns of 9 NYCRR2204.3 apply to both summary . I : . 

I 

proceedings and ejectn1ent actioi1s (see Froehlich v. Norto17 1 278 AD. 952) and that plaintiffs 

failure to comply with them req4~ireddismissal (see Kaycee West} 13th Street Corp, v. Diakoff, . i . . . . . . 

160 A.D.2d 573,574 (App, DiV{ 1st Dep't, 1990); Capilim' Realty COip. i'. i'vfiz, 202ONY Slip I . . . 

Op. 50019 (Civ. Ct.NY Co., 20f0); !KS Realty Co, v, Boinnan,21 Misc. 2d 266 (App. Div. 1st I 

Dep't, 1959). Specifically, the Go mt held that plaintiffs failure to serve the written notice to . i . . . . . . vacate thatifhad served on the defendant onDHCRR at its office located at Gertz Plaza, 92-31 .. ' I 

Union Hall Street, Jamaica NY l 1443, as tequiredby 9 NYCRR2204.3(c) was fatal {see I 

Capmqr Realty Corp., supra,; K~nt Equities Corp. v. Paez, 17 Misc 3d 127(A), (AT 1st Dep't 

. . i . . . .. . . . . . 2007); see Grant v. Morris, 18 AD2d 896 (1st Dep't 1963); Darrin,,. Cole, 53 Misc 2d 647 (AT . I . . 

I ·. . 

lst Dcp't 1967); Shahid r. Giri/10. 8 Misc 3d 134(A} (AT 2nd Dcp't 2005)1 Instead, the plaintiff 

served the notice at its ,jfficcJo~ated at '55 Hansoi1 Place, Brooklyn. New York 

i . . I . . . 

In her motion tb reargue1 the defendant correctly argues that the c.ourt overlooked the Jact 

that the tersion of 9 NYCRR 2~04.3(c) that was in effect at the tin'le seI'vice \Vas made on DHCR 

allowed for service on DHCR; s idistrict rent office: Tl1u1,, service at DHCR' s district rent office I . 

I 

located at 55 Hat1sCii1 Place was proper. 

I 

"A ri1otion fot leave tci r~argue 'shall be based upon n'l.attets of iact or law allegedly 

! 

ovedpqked or misapprehended ~y (h~ court hi determining the prior ni.otion; but shall not include 

! . 

any matters. of fact not ofi~red op the prior motion' " (Grf mm v .. Ba i/ey, 105 A,.. D.3 d 7 03, 704, 

Page 2 of4 

[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 528480/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

3 of 4

! 

963 N .Y. S .2d 277, quoting CPLR 2221 [d] [2]_; see Jiat!er qfAmerican .A lternal ive Ins. C01p. v. 

I . . Pelszvnski, 85 A.O.3d 1157. 115!8. 926 N.Y.S2d 640). Adetei•minati0Ji to grant leave to reargue • . . I 

amotion lies·\.vithin.the sound dilscretion of the court (Afal!er qfAnthony J. Cc/i'fer, DDS P. C. v, 

Carter, 81 A.D.3d 819, 820, 91 ~ N.Y.S2d 821 [citations and internal quotations omitted]). 

I 

' Here, since the Comt ap~liedthe incorrect version of9 NYCRR 2204.J(c) in addressing 

.defendant:smotionto dismiss: prai~1t'.ffs mo~i~nforre~rgu-~ent is granted. On rear~ument, 

however, the court adheres to its ongmal dec1s1on but tor dttferent reasons. The vers10n of 9 

NYCRR 2204.J(c) that was in e feet at the time plaintiff served DHCR with the notice to vacate I 

sti 11 requireq. the plaintiff to scrvb. DH CR with copies of the affida-vi ts of servi cc retl ccting 

service of the notice to vacate uJon the defendant. Plaintiff only served DHCR with a copy of 

' 

the written notice to vacate but '1eglected serve it with copies of the affidavit of service. 

Plaintiffs failure to comply v,1ittt 9 NYCRR § 2204.3 (c) ,vhich required the timely filing with , 

the district rent office of a copy 9fthe predicate notice served upon the tenant and the affidavit of 

setviceis fatal its right to l'nai1i.t~in a holdover ptocecding (Capmar JV.'alty C'oip. l\ .AHz, 66 Misc. I 

3d 1208(A), 120 N.Y.S3d586 t·Y. Civ. Ct. 2020), citing Kent Equities Corp. v. Paez, 17 Misc 

3d 127(A), (AT 1st Dcp1

-t 2007);1 [see Grant 1'. ;\!orris, 18 AD2d 896 (1st Dep't 1963); Garvinv. 

OJ!e, 53 Misc 2d 647 (AT I stDbr·t 1967); ,%a hid V. Carillo, 8 Misc 3d L34(A} (A.T 2nd Dep't ' . . 

I 

2005)], 9 NYCRR § 2204.3 (c) fnay neither be waived by the parties, nor can their conseiit 

confer jurisdiction (id., citing Gqrvin v. Cole, supra.; Ferber v. Apfel, l 1 J App.Div. 720, 723) 

(211d Dep't 1906). 

' I

!. 

The: court rejects. plaintiffs c,intcntion that the defendant foiled to raise plaintiffs lav,.. 

. . . I . . . 

compliance with 9 NYCRR 220f.3(c) as a basis for dismissaL(see Point I of Defendant's 

l'v1emorandum of Law in SuppoJ of Cross-Motion). The court has considei"cd plai11tiff s 

' I 

remairiing 4rguments in support bf its motion and find them to be unavailing, . I . 

! 

' Pot the above teasons, itlis hereby 

I . . ! 

ORDERED that pJaintift;s .inotion fot reargmnent is granted, but on reargui11ent, the court. 

I . . . . 

adheres to its initial dctenrtinatiqn thatthe action must be dismissed, without prejudice. 

I 

I 

Page 3 of4 

i 

I .......... •I•. 

[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 528480/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

4 of 4

This constitutes the dee is· on and order of the Court. 

Dated: June 5, 2024 

ees 

PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C. 

ote: This signature was generated 

electronicall y pursuant to Administrative 

Order 86/20 dated Apri l 20, 2020 

Page 4 of 4 

c...... 

~ 

5 

.r::-

0 

[* 4]