Court Opinion

ID: 9966039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:10:18.486038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.930094
License: Public Domain

933 Amsterdam Holdings, LLC v Jenkins
               2024 NY Slip Op 31526(U)
                      April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 155045/2019
                  Judge: Lisa S. Headley
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. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LISA S. HEADLEY                                             PART                              28M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          155045/2019
             933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/02/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 - V -

             KIMBERLY JENKINS, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,
            79, 80,81,82, 83,84,85, 86, 87,89,90, 91, 92,93,94, 95,96, 97, 98,99, 100,101,102,103,104,105,
            106,107,108,109,110,111
            were read on this motion to/for                                                AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

                   Plaintiff, 933 Amsterdam Holdings, LLC ("933 Amsterdam") filed the instant motion,
            pursuant to CPLR §§1018 and 1021, for an Order to substitute "HP MJM Housing Development
            Fund Company" ("HP MJM Housing") as the plaintiff in this action.
                    In the motion, plaintiff also seeks an Order, pursuant to RPL §220 and RPAPL §601, to
            direct defendant Kimberly Jenkins ("defendant") to pay past, present and future use and
            occupancy. The defendant filed opposition, as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment to
            dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff filed opposition to the cross motion.
            Substitution of Plaintiff
                    In support of the motion, plaintiff submits, inter alia, an attorney affirmation of Andrew
            Bittens, Esq., an affidavit of Elizabeth Jimenez, the property manager for the current owner, HP
            MJM Housing (NYSCEF Doc. No. 76), the plaintiff's bargain and sale deed dated July 11, 2013
            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 82), the lease agreements between plaintiff and defendant dated September 12,
            2017 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 83), the Certificate of Occupancy for the subject premises (NYSCEF
            Doc. No. 84), and the DHCR apartment registration for Apartment IC of the subject premises.
            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 87).
                    Plaintiff argues that this ejectment action was properly commenced by the plaintiff, who
            was the owner of the property, 933 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York ("subject
            premises"), and the current owner now seeks to continue the action initiated by the plaintiff. In her
            affidavit, Ms. Jimenez attests that on October 13, 2021, HP MJM Housing purchased the subject
            premises from the plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that HP MJM Housing is entitled to "enforce any
            decision and judgment by plaintiff against defendant without having to commence a new action."
            Plaintiff also contends that title of the building was transferred to HP MJM Housing subsequent to

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                                            Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                                            1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            the commencement of this action, and the current owner, as the successor-in-interest, should be
            allowed to substitute the plaintiff.
                     In opposition, the defendant contends the deed submitted in support of the motion does not
            show ownership to the current owner, and merely shows the purchase of the premises by plaintiff.
            In reply, the plaintiff corrected this error, and submitted the deed transferring title from the plaintiff
            to HP MJM Housing. (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 109). The defendant also argues that, even assuming
            that the sale occurred, the plaintiff does not explain the delay in seeking a substitution of the parties
            until June 2023, or explains why plaintiff offered renewal leases, dated May 2, 2022, to the
            defendant under the name "Amsterdam Affordable Holdings 2 LLC". (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 97).
            Therefore, the defendant argues that the motion to substitute the plaintiff must be denied.
                     CPLR §1021 states, in part, that "a motion for substitution may be made by the successors
            or representatives of a party or by any party[.]" See, CPLR §1021. CPLR §1018 states that "upon
            any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original parties unless the
            court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action."
            See, CPLR §1018.
                     Real Property Law§ 223 states, in part, that "the grantee ofleased real property ... has the
            same remedies, by entry, action or otherwise, for the nonperformance of any agreement contained
            in the assigned lease for the recovery of rent ... or for other cause of forfeiture as his grantor ...
            would have had if the reversion had remained in him." Real Property Law§ 223.; See also, Bacik
            v. JEP Rest. Corp, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 31641[U], 9 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County 2016).
                     Here, the new owner, HP MJM Housing Development Fund Company succeeds to the
            rights possessed by the plaintiff, who is the prior owner. The Bargain and Sale Deed dated October
            13, 2021, demonstrates that the plaintiff conveyed title to the subject property, located at 933
            Amsterdam Avenue, New York, N.Y., to HP MJM Housing Development Fund Company, as
            nominee for Amsterdam Affordable Holdings 2 LLC. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 109). Thus, the title and
            deed submitted is sufficient to demonstrate that HP MJM Housing Development Fund Company
            has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of this action. See, Midland Mortg. Co. v. Imtiaz,
            110 A.D.3d 773 (2d Dep't 2013). Therefore, the portion of the Plaintiff's motion to substitute
            plaintiff for current owner HP MJM Housing Development Fund Company, pursuant to CPLR §§
            1018 and CPLR 1021, is granted.
            Use and Occupancy
                     In the motion, plaintiff also seeks an order directing defendant to pay past, present, and
            future use and occupancy. The property manager contends that the defendant continues to reside
            in the subject premises and refuses to vacate. Plaintiff argues that the defendant should not be
            afforded the opportunity to live rent free during the pendency of litigation. The property manager
            attests that the defendant-tenant entered into a lease agreement for Apartment IC of the subject
            building for the period September 13, 2017, through August 31, 2018, at a monthly rental rate of
            $2,475.00. The property manager attests that the defendant failed to pay use and occupancy since
            November 2017, and owes $167,185.00 in past due rent and/or use and occupancy from November
            2017 to August 2023.

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                             Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                   In opposition, defendant challenges the amount allegedly owed in past due rent and use and
            occupancy through August 2023 totaling $167,185.00. Defendant acknowledges that she has
            resided at the subject premises since September 2017. Defendant contends that her original lease
            expired on August 31, 2018, and the plaintiff offered a second lease for a 12-month term, which
            she did not sign because the landlord-plaintiff filed a nonpayment petition against the tenant-
            defendant in Housing Court. The defendant claims that the landlord initially did not inform her
            that the subject apartment was intended for commercial purposes. Defendant also claims that the
            defendant-landlord failed to make various repairs to the refrigerator, the stove, and the washing
            machine. Defendant argues that because the apartment is illegal, the plaintiff is not entitled to rent
            or use and occupancy until there is a proper certificate of occupancy including the subject premises.
                   The plaintiff also maintains that the subject premises is illegal, however "there is a certificate
            of occupancy at the subject building that permits residential apartment use on the ground floor of
            the subject building as well as throughout the subject building." (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 84). The
            plaintiff insists that the subject premises is properly registered as a multiple dwelling (NYSCEF
            Doc. 108), and the plaintiff's apartment unit was properly registered with a legal regulated rent of
            $2,475.00 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 87). Therefore, there is nothing preventing this Court from issuing
            an Order directing defendant from paying use and occupancy.
                     The plaintiff's motion for use and occupancy is denied at this time. Here, there is no dispute
            the defendant's apartment is an illegal dwelling in its current form. Although there is a certificate
            of occupancy for the subject building that permits residential apartment use of the ground floor, it
            does not include the defendant's apartment. The defendant submits the affidavit of architect, Gregg
            Rothstein, who attests that the certificate of occupancy only permits the use of two apartments on
            the first floor, and the subject premises, Unit IC, is the third unit on the ground floor. Furthermore,
            Mr. Rothstein contests that the subject premises is illegal because "it is a newly created third class
            "A"residential unit, for a building that only permits 2 Class "A" units, and the subject premises
            does not comply with the Americans Disabilities Act, or with the minimum requirements of the
            Multiple Dwelling Law and the City of New York Housing Maintenance Code." (NYSCEF Doc.
            No. 92). Specifically, the configuration of the bathroom and kitchen "do not meet the requisite
            square footage requirements for bathrooms and kitchens and the workspace requirements for
            kitchens." Id. The plaintiff in the attorney's affirmation acknowledges that the subject premises is
            illegal.
                     In referring to unlawfully occupied dwellings or structures, Multiple Dwelling Law §302
            provides that: "[n]o rent shall be recovered by the owner of such premises for said period, and no
            action or special proceeding shall be maintained therefor, or for possession of said premises for
            nonpayment of such rent." Multiple Dwelling Law §302 (l)(b). "In the absence of a multiple
            dwelling registration and conforming certificate of occupancy, a landlord cannot recover rent or
            use and occupancy, and this restriction cannot be waived[.]" Dawkins v. Ruff, IO Misc. 3d 88, 89
            (App Term 2005), [internal citations omitted]. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover for rent, or
            use and occupancy for the subject premises at this time.

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                            Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                            3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            The Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss the Complaint
                  The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and to dismiss the plaintiff's
            complaint. Defendant submits, inter alia, her own affidavit, the attorney affirmation of Kensing
            Ng., Esq., the affidavit of architect Gregg Rothstein, the Housing Court non-payment petition
            dated May 18, 2018, the Housing Court Order dated January 7, 2019, the Lease Extension Offer
            dated May 2, 2022, the Apartment Registration dated September 28, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 98);
            the Apartment Registrations for the period 2018 to 2021 (NYSCEF Doc, No. 99), and her rent
            statements for the period February 2022, March 2022, July 2022, August 2022, and September
            2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 101).
                  In support of the cross-motion, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the plaintiff's cause of
            action is barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel because plaintiff attempts to raise the issue
            of whether the subject premises is illegal, and this issue was already raised in the Housing Court
            proceeding. The defendant argues that the plaintiff's complaint lack sufficient evidence that the
            subject premises is illegal and is incapable of being legalized. Defendant further asserts that the
            plaintiff has an obligation to make the apartment legal prior to filing this ejectment action against
            the defendant. Next, the defendant argues that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in holding out the
            subject premises as legal. Defendant claims that the plaintiff has repeatedly held out the subject
            premises to be legal by way of presenting the defendant with the 2022 rent statements, and offering
            the defendant lease extensions, and filing the apartment registration of the subject premises with
            DHCR.
                  In opposition to the defendant's cross-motion, the plaintiff contends that there has not been
            any judicial determination regarding the illegality of the subject premises, therefore the "defendant
            is collaterally estopped from claiming illegality of the subject premises to avoid paying use and
            occupancy." Plaintiff argues that this Court already denied its motion for summary judgment, and
            the Court "did not make any finding that the subject premises is illegal so that Plaintiff is not
            precluded from seeking rent/use and occupancy." (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 107). Plaintiff argues
            that "because the prior nonpayment proceeding in Housing Court concerned the lease between the
            parties as does this ejectment action does not mean that Plaintiff is barred by res judicata. " These
            cases are completely different. In Housing Court, the plaintiff sought possession of the apartment
            for nonpayment of rent, and here, the plaintiff is seeking to remove defendant from the premises
            and to terminate the landlord-tenant relationship. In addition, plaintiff argues that it "cannot be
            precluded from bringing this ejectment action, essentially a holdover proceeding by another name,
            since it could not have brought a holdover proceeding at the same time or prior to the nonpayment
            proceeding since they are mutually exclusive remedies."
                  Lastly, plaintiff asserts that the subject premises is not capable of being legalized due to the
            impossibility of making the current apartment legal because the apartment does not comply with
            the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Multiple Dwelling Law. Further,
            the plaintiff argues that the defendant did not "refute Plaintiff's expert witness statements that the
            subject premises does not comport with the existing requirements of the Americans with
            Disabilities Act as well as the Multiple Dwelling Law and that it would be impossible to do so."

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                         Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

           Nonetheless, the plaintiff argues that it is entitled to use and occupancy if the defendant refuses to
           vacate the subject premises.
                    "It is well settled that 'the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima
           facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to
            demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact'. " Pullman v. Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,
            1062 (2016), quoting, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986). "Failure to make
            such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers."
            Winegradv. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851,853 (1985).
                    "Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between
           the same parties on the same cause of action." See, Simmons v. Trans Express Inc., 37 N. Y.3d 107,
            (2021 ). "One linchpin of res judicata is an identity of parties actually litigating successive actions
            against each other: the doctrine applies only when a claim between the parties has been previously
            'brought to a final conclusion'." Id. Therefore, in order to determine whether two claims arise out
            of the same transaction or series of transactions, "courts should analyze whether the claims tum
            on facts that 'are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial
           unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business
           understanding or usage'." Id.
                    "[C]ollateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or
           proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against the party ...
           whether or not the ... causes of action are the same." See, Cruz v. Miller UK Ltd., 214 A.D.3d 590
            (1st Dep't 2023). The Housing Court judge, Hon. Timmie Elsner, issued a Decision and Order in
           the non-payment proceeding dated January 7, 2019, and granted the defendant-tenant's motion for
            summary judgment, thereby dismissing the case filed by the plaintiff-landlord because "the subject
           premises is in a building with more than six (6) units constructed before 1974 and is therefore
            subject to rent stabilization." Judge Elsner's Decision and Order also dismissed the defendant-
           tenant's rent overcharge claims and directed her to "file a Fair Market Rent appeal before DHCR."
           (See, NYSCEF Doc. 96).
                     Here, the Court recognizes that the parties remain the same, but the issues are not similar.
            This instant action in Supreme Court, seeks the ejectment of the plaintiff from the subject premises,
           use and occupancy, and attorney's fees. These issues were not raised in the prior proceeding, which
           was before a different forum in Housing Court, where the plaintiff sued the defendant for
           nonpayment of rent. Further, there has not been a final conclusion as to the nonpayment of rent
           because the Order issued in by Hon. Elsner granted the tenant's motion to dismiss the nonpayment
           proceeding on the basis that the apartment may have been subject to rent regulation, and further
            directed the defendant to address the rent regulation issue by filing an appeal with DHCR.
            Therefore, defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and motion to dismiss this action
           must be denied.
                    Accordingly, it is hereby
                     ORDERED that the portion of the plaintiffs motion to substitute current owner, "HP MJM
           Housing Development Fund Company" as plaintiff is GRANTED; and it is further

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                          Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 155045/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                     ORDERED that the portion of the plaintiff's motion for use and occupancy pendente lite
            is DENIED at this time. The plaintiff can renew the application for use and occupancy at trial; and
            it is further
                     ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and to dismiss
            plaintiff's complaint is DENIED, and it is further
                     ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to file form EF 23 to reflect the change in the
            caption; and it is further
                     ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein has
            nonetheless been considered.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    4/30/2024
                      DATE                                                       LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             155045/2019 933 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC vs. JENKINS, KIMBERLY                         Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]