Case Name: In the Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp., Appellant, v. Ronald Pickett, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-01-14
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp., Appellant, v Ronald Pickett, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 518–525

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp., Appellant, v Ronald Pickett, Respondent.
[23 NYS3d 204]

Opinion:
Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about August 22, 2014, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Javier E. Vargas, J.), entered on or about October 8, 2013, granting respondent tenant's motion to, among other things, be restored to possession of the subject apartment upon his payment of $14,030.59 to petitioner landlord by a specified date, affirmed, without costs.
We reject the landlord's contention, premised on RPAPL 749 (3), that the Civil Court lacked the authority to grant the tenant's post-eviction motion (see Matter of Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 682 [1994]; see also Parkchester Apts. Co. v Scott, 271 AD2d 273, 273 [1st Dept 2000]). "[T]he Civil Court may, in appropriate circumstances, vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession even after the warrant has been executed" (Brusco, 84 NY2d at 682; see also Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664, 664 [1st Dept 2012]). Here, the Civil Court providently exercised its discretion, as the record shows that the long-term, disabled tenant "did not sit idly by[,]" but instead made appreciable payments towards his rental arrears and "engaged in good faith efforts to secure emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears" (Harvey, 96 AD3d at 665; see also Parkchester, 271 AD2d at 273-274). Moreover, the tenant has paid the rental arrears for the unit and the landlord's costs for the underlying proceeding (see Parkchester, 271 AD2d at 273), and the record shows that the delays in payment were, to a certain extent, attributable to others, including the landlord (see 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta and Richter, JJ.