Court Opinion

ID: 9947039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:09:06.04475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.722255
License: Public Domain

Rock-Park 94 LLC v Camba, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30614(U)
                   February 27, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 523061/2021
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
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 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                       INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                                                                                  At an IAS Term, Part 52 of the
                                                                                  Supreme Court of the State of New
                                                                                  York, held in and for the County of
                                                                                  Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic
                                                                                  Center, Brooklyn, New York, on
                                                                                  the 27th day of February 2024

            HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
            -----------------------------------------------------------------X

            ROCK-PARK 94 LLC,                                                    DECISION, ORDER &
                                                                                 JUDGMENT
                                      Plaintiff,                                 Index No. 523061/2021

                             - against-                                          Oral Argument Date: 08-07-2023
                                                                                 Cal. Nos. 3
            CAMBA, Inc. and JOHN DOE,                                            Mot. Seq. Nos. 1

                                      Defendants.

            -----------------------------------------------------------------X

                   By notice of motion, under motion sequence one, filed on December 30, 2022, defendant
            CAMBA, Inc. sought an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 602, consolidating several civil actions
            involving common questions of fact and law (see fn 1); and (2) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)
            dismissing the complaint of plaintiff 80 Lenox LLC. This motion was opposed by the plaintiff
            ROCK-PARK 94 LLC. NYSCEF document nos. 14 through and including 28, were considered
            on motion sequence one.

                    After oral argument on the record, the order of the Court is as follows.

            1
             The movant seeks to consolidate the following actions: 55 Lenox LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523050/2021; 80
            Lenox LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523051/2021; 80 Lenox LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523052/2021; West Sterling
            131 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523053/2021; West Sterling 131 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523055/2021; West
            Sterling 131 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523056/2021; RP82 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523057/2021; Rock-Park
            94 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 532058/2021; Rock-Park 94 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523059/2021; and Rock-Park
            94 LLC v CAMBA Inc. et al., 523061/2021.

                                                                 1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            BACKGROUND

                   On September 9, 2021, Rock-Park 94 LLC (hereinafter plaintiff) commenced the instant

            action by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk’s office

            (KCCO) The verified complaint is asserted against CAMBA, Inc. (hereinafter CAMBA) and

            John Doe. CAMBA is a nonprofit that rents an apartment to provide supportive housing. The

            complaint contained four causes of action: a request for a declaratory judgment that the premises

            were not rent stabilized; a request for a judgment of ejectment; a request for a judgment for use

            and occupancy; and a request for a judgment for attorneys’ fees against CAMBA.

                   CAMBA answered the complaint on October 15, 2021.

                   Plaintiff replied to CAMBA’s counterclaims on November 4, 2021.

            MOTION PAPERS

                   On December 30, 2022, defendant moved to consolidate this action with nine other

            related actions seeking identical relief against CAMBA and the apartment occupants with respect

            to nine other apartments and to dismiss each complaint.2

            2
              The captions for the ten cases are as follows: 55 Lenox LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Deydalia Quijada,
            523050/2021; 80 Lenox LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Towanda Daniels, 523051/2021; 80 Lenox LLC v
            CAMBA, Inc. and Cynthia Barnes, 523052/21; West Sterling 131 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and John Doe
            523053/2021; West Sterling 131 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Que Jackson-Munoz, 523055/2021; West
            Sterling 131 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Melissa Watts, 523056/2021; RP82 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Jaclyn
            Vazquez, 523057/2021; Rock-Park 94 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and John Doe, 523058/2021; Rock-Park 94
            LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and Jeanna Thelwell, 523059/2021; and Rock-Park 94 LLC v CAMBA, Inc. and John
            Doe, 523061/2021. The Legal Aid Society appeared as counsel in the seven cases where the occupants
            were added as defendants and filed motions raising identical arguments on behalf of the occupants in
            these seven cases. CAMBA also filed identical motions in all ten cases.

                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                    CAMBA’s motion papers include an affirmation of counsel, memoranda of law, and

            four annexed exhibits labeled A through D which included the pleadings and notice of

            termination in the instant action.

                    Plaintiff’s opposition papers to CAMBA’s papers include an affirmation of

            counsel, a memorandum of law, and three annexed exhibits including a copy of Rent

            Stabilization Code Section 2520.11, the summons, complaint, and answer filed in the

            instant action.

                    Defendant CAMBA filed a memorandum of law in reply to the plaintiff’s

            opposition to its motion.

                    At oral argument, the Court indicated that it would reserve decision on that portion of

            the motion seeking consolidation until after it had rendered decision on the motion to dismiss.

            The parties assented to this proposal.

            LAW AND APPLICATION

                    Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). “When a

            party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the

            pleading states a cause of action” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 682 [2d

            Dept 2012]). “In considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the

            complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and

            determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (id.).

            “However, bare legal conclusions are not presumed to be true and are not accorded every

            favorable inference” (Kupersmith v Winged Foot Golf Club, Inc., 38 AD3d 847, 847 [2d Dept

            2007], citing McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676 [2d Dept 2006]).

                                                         3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                   Apartments in New York City in buildings constructed before 1974 are subject to rent

            stabilization unless an exemption applies (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11).

            Rent stabilized tenancies may only be terminated by following the procedures set out in the

            Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR § 2524.2). The termination notice must state the

            ground under section 2524.3 or 2524.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, upon which the owner

            relies for removal or eviction of the tenant, the facts necessary to establish the existence of such

            ground, and the date when the tenant is required to surrender possession” (9 NYCRR § 2524.2

            [b]). The failure to serve a proper termination notice is a basis for dismissal of the landlord’s

            claim for possession (see Matter of Gracecor Realty Co. v Hargrove, 90 NY2d 350, 354

            [1997]; Commercial Hotel, Inc. v White, 194 Misc 2d 26 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]).

                   The plaintiff has alleged two bases for exemption: RSC § 2520.11 (f) and that CAMBA

            is a corporation. Neither is a valid basis for exemption. RSC § 2520.11 (f) provides an

            exemption from rent stabilization as between certain nonprofit institutions and individuals

            affiliated with the nonprofit. It does not provide an exemption when a nonprofit signs a lease

            with a for-profit landlord (2363 ACP Pineapple, LLC v Iris House, Inc., 55 Misc 3d 7 [App

            Term, 1st Dept 2017], citing 520 E. 81st St. Assoc. v Lenox Hill Hosp., 38 NY2d 525, 528

            [1976]). These cases and others also make clear that a corporation can hold a rent-stabilized

            tenancy.

                   The plaintiff argues that there is a factual allegation that prevents dismissal, because

            CAMBA acknowledged in the lease that the apartment was exempt from rent stabilization.

            Theplaintiff’s complaint alleges that the subject property is exempt from the rent

            stabilization law because the subject lease of the property contained language expressing the

            parties’ waiver from the rent stabilization law. Facts admitted by a party's pleadings

                                                          4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            constitute formal judicial admissions (Zegarowicz v Ripatti, 77 AD3d 650, 653 [2d Dept.

            2010], citing Falkowski v. 81 & 3 of Watertown, Inc., 288 AD2d 890, 891 [4th Dept. 2001];

            Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8—215, at 523—524 [Farrell 11th ed. 1995]).

            Formal judicial admissions are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they

            are made (Zegarowicz, 77 AD3d at

            653, citing Coffin v Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co., 136 NY 655 [1893]). It is therefore a

            conclusive fact, that the plaintiff was relying on a waiver clause in the lease agreement to

            render the subject property exempt from the rent stabilization law. In other words, there is no

            issue of fact on the plaintiff’s reliance of this lease provision in support of its contention that

            the rent stabilization law does not apply. However, this waiver language in the subject lease is

            null and void, as it is contrary to law and public policy to waive rights under rent stabilization

            (9 NYCRR

            § 2520.13; Drucker v Mauro, 30 AD3d 37, 39 [1st Dept 2006]). The legal conclusion

            that plaintiff asserts is not entitled to any favorable inference under CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

                    The plaintiff’s claimed exemptions are invalid; the apartment is subject to rent

            stabilization. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for ejectment is dismissed because it has failed to

            serve the notice required by the Rent Stabilization Code before bringing such a claim

            (Commercial Hotel v White, 194 Misc 2d 26 [App. Term 2nd Dep’t 2002]).

                    Similarly, the plaintiff is not entitled to a declaratory judgment that the apartment is

            not subject to rent stabilization, because it is subject to rent stabilization. And because the

            plaintiff’s claim for ejectment has been dismissed, it cannot prevail on its claims for use and

            occupancy or attorneys’ fees, which are ancillary to the claim for ejectment. Therefore, those

            claims are dismissed as well.

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 03:57 PM                                                INDEX NO. 523061/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            CONCLUSION

                   The branch of defendant CAMBA Inc.’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211

            (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff ROCK-PARK 94 LLC is granted.

                   Accordingly, the branch of defendant CAMBA Inc.’s motion for an order pursuant to

            CPLR 602 to consolidate several civil actions involving common questions of fact and law is

            denied as moot.

                   It is the Decision, Order and Judgment of this Court that the action is dismissed.

            ENTER:
                                                                       ______________________________
                                                                                   J.S.C.

                                                        6 of 6
[* 6]