### 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 OFTHE 

### SfATE 

### OF NEW YORK COUNTY OFKlNGS: PART 7 

### ·, --------- ..---- ·. . ---- .· . ------------- ----------- --------. -- . ------X 479HICKS STREET 

### LLC, Pfai11tiff.-againstMARUJA RIAL CHRISTINA JAL NICKAS, Defendants.



# --------------------- ·--. -----. ------- . ------- .--.---.------ ··------x.. Index 

### No.: 5

### 28480/2021 Motion Date: 6~3-24 Mot. Seq. No.: 6 

### DECISI

### ON/ORDER

Upon the follo,,ving pap 

### -rs, listed on NYSCEF 

### as docui11ent num.bers 117-123 ,verc read on this 

### motion: The plaintiff: 479 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 

### summaryjudgment 

### 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 declaratoryjudgment that '

. 

### the defendant Maruja 

### Rial is not a primat'y resident ofapartment 1 R 

### ofthe building and seeks to i 

### ejecther 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 

### landlorq. shall have given 

### written notice to the tenant and to the 

### Division 

# dfHousing 

### and 

## Comm unity 

### Renewal, Office. of RentAdminisftation, 

### Gertz Plaza, 92~31 Union 

### HalJ Street; J

### airiaka, N

## e,v Yorkl1433 

## as hereinafter 

### provided. 

### (emplmsi,\' · 

### ,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 bfthetenmit, 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 ofservice, shalI 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 of9 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} 13thStreet 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); !KSRealty Co, v, Boinnan,21 Misc. 2d 266 (App. Div. 1st I Dep't, 1959). Specifically, the 

# Go mtheld 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, 17Misc 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't2005)1 Instead, the plaintiff served the notice at its ,jfficcJo~ated at '55 Hansoi1 Place, Brooklyn. New York i

. . I . . . In her motion tb reargue

# 1 the defendant correctly argues that the c.ourt overlooked theJact thatthe tersion of9 NYCRR 2~04.3(c) thatwas in effect at the tin'le seI'vice \Vas made on DHCR allowed for service on DHCR;s idistrict rent office: 

### Tl1u1,, service 

### atDHCR'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 ormisapprehended ~y (h~ court 

### hidetermining the 

### prior ni.otion; but shall not include ! . 

### any matters. 

### offact not ofi~red 

# op the prior

### motion' " (Grf mm v . .



### Bai/ey, 105 

### A,..D.3

### d 703, 

### 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 

### lternalive 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 

## ofthe court (Afal!er 

### qfAnthonyJ. 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 of9 NYCRR 2204.J(c) thatwas in

# e feet at the time plaintiff served 

### DHCR with the notice to vacate I sti 11 requireq. the plaintiffto scrvb.DHCR with copies ofthe affida-vits of servicc retlccting service ofthe notice to vacate uJon the defendant. Plaintiffonly served DHCR with a copy of ' the written notice to vacate but '1eglected serve it with copies ofthe affidavit 

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

### , the district rent office ofa 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 Dcp 1 -t 2007);1 

### [see Grant 1'. 

### ;\!orris, 18 AD2d 896 (1st Dep't 1963); 

### Garvinv. OJ!e, 53 Misc 2d 647 (AT IstDbr·t 1967); ,%ahid V. Carillo, 8 Misc 3d L34(A} (A.T2nd Dep't 

### '

. . I 2005)], 9 NYCRR § 2204.3 (c) fnay neither be waived by the parties, nor can their conseiit conferjurisdiction (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 ofLaw in SuppoJ 

### ofCross-Motion). The court has considei"cd plai11tiffs ' I remairiing 4rguments in support bfits motion and find them to be unavailing,

. I . ! ' 

### Pot 

### the above teasons, itlis hereby 

# I

. . ! ORDEREDthat 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 deeis·on and order ofthe Court. Dated: June 5, 2024 

# ees PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C.

ote: This signature was generated electronically pursuant to Administrative Order 86/20 dated Apri l 20 , 2020

Page 4 of4 c......**~**


### 5 .r::- 0



### [* 4]