Court Opinion

ID: 9961505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 21:09:05.887829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:50.073512
License: Public Domain

448-452 W. 57 Assoc. LLC v Ghali
               2024 NY Slip Op 31294(U)
                      April 15, 2024
 Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
     Docket Number: Index No. LT-312110-22/NY
                Judge: Tracy E. Ferdinand
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.
                                                      INDEX NO. LT-312110-22/NY
  FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/16/2024 11:34 AM
  NYSCEF   DOC. ofNO.
     Civil Court       41 of New York
                   the City                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
        County of New York                                                                       Ill Illll l lllllll llllll111111111111111111111111 11 111
        Part: Part H, Room: 830                                                                 Index #: LT-312110-22/NY
        Date: October 27, 2024                                                                  Motion Seq #: 4

                                                                    Decision/Order

        448-452 West 57 Associates LLC                                                          Present: Tracy E. Ferdin and
                        Petitioner(s)                                                                       Judge
              -against-
        Peter Ghali
                        Respondent(s)

        Recitation , as required by CPLR 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion for :
        Dismiss

                                                   PAPERS                            NUMBERED
                               Notice of Motion and Affidav its/Affirmations
                               Annexed
                               Order to Show Cause and
                               Affidavits/ Affirmat ions Annexed
                               Answering Affidavits/ Affirmations                     2. _ _ __ _ __ _
                               Replying Affidavits/ Affirmations                      3_ _ __ _ _ __
                               Exhibits
                               Stipulations
                               Other _ Verified Am ended Answer                        4_ _ __ __ _ _

        Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order in this Motion is as follows :

    This summary non-payment proceeding was commenced seeking rent arrears for the premises known as 448 West
    57 th Street ("Building") apartment SC ("Apartment"). (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1-3). Respondent, represented by
    counsel, interposed an answer asserting several defenses and counterclaims including rent overcharge. (NYSCEF
    Doc. No. 4) .

    Respondent initially moved for discovery on his defense and counterclaim of rent overcharge. (NYSCEF Doc.                                                o.
    5-10). Petitioner opposed and cross-moved to amend the Petition to reflect the Apartment is exempt from rent
    control or rent stabilization. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13-1 o).

    By Decision/Order dated August 28, 2023, the court granted Petitioner' s motion to amend, directed Respondent to
    serve and file and amended answer, and denied Respondent' s discovery motion with leave to renew based upon the
    claims and defenses asserted in the new pleadings. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 28). Respondent timely fil ed an amended
    answer (NYSCEF Doc. 40).

    Respondent now moves for summary judgment dismissing the Petition on the ground that "the lack of an existing
    rental agreement at commencement of this proceeding" precludes Petitioner's ability to maintain this non-payment
    proceeding. (N YSCEF Doc. 23-26'). Petitioner opposes. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 29-35).

    DISCUSSION

    It is axiomatic that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt
    about the existence of a triable issue. (Ro tuba Extruders inc. v Ceppos, 46 N. Y.2d 223 [ 1979]). It is incumbent
    upon the movant to establish their cause of action or defense showing an entitlement to judgment as a matter ! f

[* 1]                                                                     1 of 4
                                                      INDEX NO. LT-312110-22/NY
  FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/16/2024 11:34 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
        law, by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form. (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N. Y.2d 557 [1 980]).
        Only after movant's prima facie showing does the burden shift to the opposing party to demonstrate the existence
        of a factual dispute sufficient to require a trial of the matter. (De Lourders Torres v Jones, 26 N .Y.3d 742 [2016]).
        The predicate 14-day Notice dated June 22, 2022 demands:

               "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby required to pay to 448-452 WEST 57
               ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. , landlord of the above described Premises, the sum of $14,950. 00 for
               rent of the premises as follows:

               JUN 22 $2,700.00
               MAY 22 $2,700.00
               APR 22 $2,700.00
               MAR 22 $2,700.00
               FEB 22 $2,700.00
               JAN 22 $1 ,450.00" (NYSCEF Doc. 1, p.3) .

        The Petition dated August 3, 2022, provides in pertinent part:

               " 2. Respondent(s) PETER GHALI is(are) tenant(s) in possession of said premises pursuant to
               a(n) WRITTE lease agreement wherein respondents promised to pay to landlord or
               landlord(s) predecessor as rent $2,700.00 each month in advance on the 1ST day of each
               month ...

               6. Pursuant to said agreement there was due from respondent tenant(s), the sum of $14,950.00
               in rent and additional rent as follows:

               JUN 22 $2,700,00
               MAY 22 $2,700.00
               APR 22 $2,700.00
               MAR 22 $2,700.00
               FEB 22 $2,700.00
               JAN 22 $1,450.00 ... " (NYSCEF Doc. No 1, p. 1).

        Respondent states that he never executed a rental agreement with the Petitioner for $2700.00 and that
        his last renewal lease was for $2000.00 per month. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 25). He argues that because
        there was no lease in effect at commencement of this proceeding, Petitioner was precluded from
        commencing this proceeding and the Petition should be dismissed.

        Petitioner opposes first arguing that Respondent did not raise the lack of a rental agreement in his
        Answer and therefore may not move for summary judgment on a defense not specifically raised.
        (NYSCEF Doc. No. 30).

        Courts have held:

               "Defendants' failure to plead the affirmative defense of waiver in their answer did not preclude
               them from asserting such defense for the first time on summary judgment, since '[t]here is no
               prohibition against moving for summary judgment based on an unpleaded defense where the
               opposing party is not taken by surprise and does not suffer prejudice as a result'(A rteaga v City
               ofNew York, l 01 AD3d 454 , 454, 956 NYS2d 9 [l st Dept 2012]; see Brill & Meisel v Brown,
               113 AD3d 435 435 , 979 NYS2d 283 [1st Dept 2014]" Matthew Adam Props., Inc. v United
               House of Prayer for All People of the Church on the Rock of the Apostolic Faith, 126 AD3 d
               599, 600 [1st Dept 2015].

                                                                  2
[* 2]                                                          2 of 4
                                                      INDEX NO. LT-312110-22/NY
  FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/16/2024 11:34 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

        The Court finds Petitioner's claims of prejudice unavailing and further, while not raised in the initial
        Answer, Respondent's Verified Amended Answer, filed in response to the Amended Petition, does
        raise this as his first defense. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40).

        Petitioner then argues that a non-payment proceeding may be maintained even in the absence of a lease
        agreement for the monies sought. Citing 428 E. 66th St. , LLC v Meirowitz, 12 Misc 3d 141 [A], 2006
        NY Slip Op 5 l 364[U] [App Term 2006], Petitioner asse1ts "all that is required is that there be some
        agreement for rent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding." Petitioner states that a lease
        renewal for $2700 was offered to Respondent but that he refused to execute same. (NYSCEF Doc. No.
        29).

        In Meirowitz, the Appellate Term held that, in that instance, the absence of a lease, was not necessarily
        a bar to the proceeding. In affirming the lower court's award of a possessory judgment to the landlord
        after a jury trial, the Court held:

               "the parties ' impasse over the lease terms was fueled, in large part, by the tenant's meritle s
               claim of entitlement to use of the building's backyard area (see Meirowitz v DHCR, 28 A.D.3d
               350,814 N.Y.S.2d 56 [2006)), the absence of a formal lease agreement during the relevant time
               period should not work a forfeiture of landlord's right to pursue its rent claim via a summary
               proceeding (cf Haberman v Singer, 273 A.D.2d 177, 710 N.Y.S.2d 64 [2000)). Nor does the
               record establish that landlord wrongfully withheld a lease or was ' manipulating the tenant with
               the tenant's ultimate inability to satisfy a judgment and consequent eviction in mind' (Haberman
               v Singer, 3 A.D.3d 188, 771 N.Y.S.2d 505 [2004)" Id. at 141A.

        Even if the question of why there is or isn' t a current lease in effect presents a triable issue of fact per
        Meirowitz, the Court finds that this proceeding is i1Teparably defective and must be dismissed.

                "A nonpayment proceeding may only be maintained to collect rent owed pursuant to an
                agreement between the paities, express or implied, and here petitioner failed to meet its burden
                to establish the existence of an agreement with respondents to pay the rent and other charges
                demanded in the petition (see West 152nd Assoc. , L.P. v. Gassama, 65 Misc 3d l 55[A], 119
                N. Y.S.3d 801, 2019 NY Slip Op 5 I 926[U] [App Tem1, l st Dept 2019)). Although the petition
                alleged the exi.stence of a written lease between the paities, petitioner admitted at trial that it
                was not in possession of any proprietary lease, share certificate, transfer agreement or oth r
                direct evidence of any lease agreement with respondents Michael Dezertzov and Neomi
                Deze1tzov." 6 W 20th St. Tenants Corp. v Dezertzov, 75 Misc 3d 135[A], 2022 NY Slip Op
                50529[U], * 1-2 [App Term 2022].

        Here the Petition pleads specifically that the Respondent is a tenant pursuant to a written rental
        agreement with a monthly rent of $2,700.00 per month. Petitioner annexes the last lease between the
        parties as "Exhibit A" to the opposition. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 31) . This lease was for a one-year term
        commencing September 2020 and August 31, 2021 , at a monthly rent of $2000.00 per month.
        Petitioner concedes that it mistakenly thought Respondent's purported refusal to sign the renewal lease
        made him liable for the higher rent, and that it erroneously sought $2700.00 per month in this
        proceeding without a formal agreement to pay same. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 29-30).

        Nevertheless, and without an agreement, express or implied, to pay the $2700.00 claimed due,
        Petitioner demanded payment of saine not only in the Petition but in the 14-day rent demand.

        CPLR 409(b) provides in pertinent part:

                                                                     3
[* 3]                                                             3 of 4
                                                      INDEX NO. LT-312110-22/NY
  FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/16/2024 11:34 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

               "(b) Summary determination. The court shall make a summary determination upon the
                                                                                                                    \
               pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised. The cou
               may make any orders permitted on a motion for summary judgment."

        A written rent demand is a necessary predicate to commencement of a summary non-payment
        proceeding. (see, RPAPL § 711) A proper rent demand must satisfy the statutory requirements of
        RP APL §711 (2) and provide a tenant notice "of the particular periods for which rent and other charges
        were due and the approximate good faith amount claimed for each such period ... " Almark Holdings
        Co., LLCv. Pizza147 NY LLC, 2022 N .Y. Misc. LEXIS 7646 [App. Term l5 1 Dept. 2022]. A predicate
        notice, however, is incapable of amendment and an improper demand may serve as a basis for
        dismissal. (China/own Apts., Inc. v Chu Cho Lam, 51 Y2d 786 [1980]).

        Here, Petitioner concedes its written demand for $2700.00 per month was improper. The 14-day demand is
        therefore defective, and the proceeding must be dismissed.

        Accordingly, and pursuant to CPLR 409(b) the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.
                                                                                                                        \
        This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

        Date: _ 4/15/2024 _ _ __ __ _

                                                                                      Judge, Civil/Housi ng Court

                                                                   4
[* 4]                                                            4 of 4