Court Opinion

ID: 9945570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:11:37.370429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.244990
License: Public Domain

Singh v Silva
               2024 NY Slip Op 30561(U)
                    February 22, 2024
  Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
    Docket Number: Index No. L&T 327624-23/BX
                 Judge: Diane E. Lutwak
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-327624-23/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/22/2024 08:53 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
            BRONX COUNTY: HOUSING PART K-SPP
            ---------------------------------------------------------------X    L&T Index # 327624-23/BX
            JEETENDRA SINGH,
                                         Petitioner-Landlord,

                     -against-
                                                                                DECISION & ORDER
            RUBEN SILVA,
                                         Respondent-Tenant,
            MARLENE L. SILVA, ELIZABETH V. SILVA,
            “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE”,
                                         Respondents-Undertenants.
            ----------------------------------------------------------------X
            Hon. Diane E. Lutwak, HCJ:

                  Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of
            Respondents’ summary judgment motion under CPLR R 3212:
            Papers                                                              NYSCEF Doc #
            Notice of Motion                                                          30
            Attorney’s Affirmation in Support of Motion                               31
            Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion                                    32
            Exhibits A-G in Support of Motion                                         33-39
            Petition/Verified Answers                                                 1/8, 9
            Exhibits A-K in Support of Prior Discovery Motion                         14-24

            FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                    This is a holdover eviction proceeding based upon a 90-day notice of nonrenewal of
            lease and termination of tenancy. The petition states that respondent Ruben Silva is the tenant
            of the subject premises (Apartment 2 at 2296 Belmont Avenue in the Bronx) pursuant to a lease
            dated December 17, 2019 for the term of January 1 through December 31, 2020; the premises
            are not subject to rent regulation because the building contains less than six residential
            apartments and became vacant after June 30, 1971; and the tenant receives a Section 8 rent
            subsidy administered by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA).
                   Respondent-tenant Ruben Silva and respondent-undertenant Marlene L. Silva
            (hereinafter “respondents”) filed verified answers by counsel raising, inter alia, a defense of
            Rent Stabilization coverage based on the building’s participation since 2010 in the New York
            State Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-a Tax Exemption Benefit Program. Respondents

                                                                                                           1|Page

                                                                      1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-327624-23/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/22/2024 08:53 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            allege petitioner failed to provide them with the requisite lease, lease rider and notices
            pertaining to the effects of any expiration of the § 421-a tax exemption benefit.
                     Following settlement of respondents’ discovery motion, and review of subpoenaed
            documents produced by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and
            Development (HPD), respondents now move under CPLR R 3212 for summary judgment on
            their claim of Rent Stabilization coverage and failure to comply with RPTL § 421-a notice
            requirements. Accompanying the motion as exhibits are various documents produced by HPD
            in response to the subpoena: HPD letter dated February 26, 2010 stating that 2296 Belmont
            Avenue “has been deemed eligible for 421-a partial tax exemption benefits”, subject to
            payment within 90 days of a fee of $5731.36; proof of such payment; a “Preliminary Certificate
            of Eligibility” (PCE) dated February 26, 2010; an application for a “Final Certificate of Eligibility”
            (FCE) dated February 23, 2018; and email correspondence between HPD and the prior owner of
            the building, Dharminder Singh, dated between August 17, 2018 and February 25, 2020,
            including an email dated January 21, 2020 notifying Mr. Singh that the property was “being
            referred for revocation due to non-compliance” and subsequent emails discussing steps to be
            taken to complete the FCE application process.
                   Respondents’ motion also relies on documents submitted in support of their prior
            discovery motion, including: (1) NYCHA notice dated November 21, 2018 confirming approval of
            respondents’ Section 8 subsidy and execution of a Housing Assistance Payments contract
            between NYCHA and the owner of 2296 Belmont Avenue, effective November 1, 2018 with a
            monthly contract rent of $2136, tenant share of $723 and subsidy of $1413; (2) NYCHA Section
            8 noticed dated October 24, 2019 confirming completion of an annual review, effective
            November 1, 2019, with tenant share reduced to $0, NYCHA subsidy increased to $2136; (3)
            rent registration history from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
            showing respondents’ apartment registered in February 2020 as Rent Stabilized for the years
            2012 through 2019; (4) NYC Department of Finance (DOF) 2018/2019 tax bills for 2296 Belmont
            Avenue reflecting receipt of a 421-a tax exemption; and (5) DOF website printout showing 2296
            Belmont Avenue subject to a 421-a tax exemption in the 2018-19 tax year.
                  Petitioner filed no opposition; however, his attorney asserted at oral argument that the
            motion should be denied as the 421-a tax exemption has been revoked.
            DISCUSSION
                     Section 741(4) of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) requires that
            the petition in a summary eviction proceeding, “(1) State the interest of the petitioner in the
            premises from which removal is sought. (2) State the respondent’s interest in the premises and
            his relationship to petitioner with regard thereto. (3) Describe the premises from which
            removal is sought. (4) State the facts upon which the special proceeding is based. (5) State the
            relief sought.” Where a tenancy is subject to a specific type of regulation, the general rule is
            that the petition must state the premises’ regulatory status, as it may determine the scope of

                                                                                                       2|Page

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-327624-23/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/22/2024 08:53 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            the parties’ rights and defenses. MSG Pomp Corp v Jane Doe (185 AD2d 798, 586 NYS2d 965
            [1st Dep’t 1992]); Giannini v Stuart (6 AD2d 418, 178 NYS2d 709 [1st Dep’t 1958]); Randall
            Assocs, LLC v Davis (20 Misc3d 1116[A], 867 NYS2d 20 [Civ Ct NY Co 2008]).
                    RPTL § 421-a, entitled “Affordable New York Housing Program,” is a real estate tax
            exemption program for owners of certain newly-constructed multiple dwellings. Matter of Kew
            Gardens Dev Corp v Wambua (103 AD3d 576, 961 NYS2d 48 [1st Dep’t 2013]); Lincoln
            Metrocenter Partners, LP v Tax Comm'n (654 NYS2d 964, 171 Misc2d 520 [Sup Ct NY Co 1996]).
            For buildings participating in the 421-a tax exemption program, rents are “fully subject to
            control” under Rent Stabilization and/or the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974. RPTL §
            421-a(2)(f). See Matter of Tribeca Equity Partners, LP v New York State Div of Hous &
            Community Renewal (144 AD3d 554, 42 NYS3d 102 [1st Dep’t 2016]); and see generally Roberts
            v Tishman Speyer Props, LP (62 AD3d 71, 874 NYS2d 97 [1st Dep’t], aff’d by and certified
            question answered by 13 NY3d 270, 918 NE2d 900, 890 NYS2d 388 [2009]). Rent Stabilization
            status attaches to the apartments even if the building would otherwise be exempt from rent
            regulation. Chernett v Spruce 1209, LLC (200 AD3d 596, 596, 161 NYS3d 48 [1st Dep’t 2021]);
            North-Driggs Holdings, LLC v Burstiner (44 Misc3d 318, 325, 986 NYS2d 318 [Civ Ct Kings Co
            2014]). Rent stabilization coverage ends only after expiration of the § 421-a tax benefits,
            provided the requisite notices have been provided to the tenant, or when the unit becomes
            vacant. RPTL § 421-a(2)(f)(ii); Tribeca Equity Partners, LP v New York State Div of Hous and
            Community Renewal (144 AD3d 554, 554, 42 NYS3d 102, 103 [1st Dep’t 2016]).
                     Here, respondents provided proof that the building received the 421-a tax benefit for
            the 2018-19 tax year, when they moved in. It follows that respondents’ tenancy is subject to
            Rent Stabilization until the tax exemption expires and they are given proper notice. RPTL § 421-
            a(2)(f)(ii). While there is some indication in the email correspondence between HPD and the
            prior owner that HPD was considering revocation of the 421-a exemption, petitioner provided
            no proof of such revocation or that respondents were given proper notice.
                    The proponent of a summary judgment motion under CPLR R 3212 must make a prima
            facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in
            admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. Winegrad v New
            York Univ Med Center (64 NY2d 851, 476 NE2d 642, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]); Zuckerman v New
            York (49 NY2d 557, 404 NE2d 718, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). Once this showing has been made,
            the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidence in admissible form sufficient to
            establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action. Alvarez v
            Prospect Hospital (68 NY2d 320, 324, 501 NE2d 572, 508 NYS2d 923, 925-926 [1986]);
            Zuckerman v New York (49 NY2d at 562, 427 NYS2d at 598).
                    Respondents have presented sufficient evidence to meet their initial burden on this
            motion, as the documents filed establish unequivocally that HPD approved the building for a
            25-year, § 421-a real estate tax exemption in 2010, the apartment was in fact registered as Rent
            Stabilized with the DHCR for certain years, and respondents were not given any notice of either
                                                                                                    3|Page

                                                         3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-327624-23/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/22/2024 08:53 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            the original § 421-a/Rent Stabilized status of their apartment when they moved in or, if in fact
            the tax exemption was thereafter revoked due to the building owner’s non-compliance, any
            notice of such revocation and termination of Rent Stabilization status. The petition and
            predicate notice make no mention of any of this, and petitioner purports to proceed as if no
            such Rent Stabilization status pursuant to RPTL § 421-a applies to respondents’ tenancy.
                   Petitioner has raised no material facts or legal authority to counter respondents’ factual
            and legal assertions. Accordingly, “the eviction remedy sought by landlord does not lie.”
            Valentine Towers v Torres (71 Misc3d 138[A], 145 NYS3d 755 [App Term 1st Dep’t 2021]); 53-63
            Partners, LP v Paez (63 Misc3d 158[A], 115 NYS3d 798 [App Term 1st Dep’t 2019]).
            CONCLUSION
                  For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that respondents’ motion for
            summary judgment is granted, their counterclaim is severed1, and this proceeding is dismissed,
            without prejudice. This constitutes the Court’s Decision and Order, which is being uploaded on
            NYSCEF.
                                                                        _________________________
                                                                        Diane E. Lutwak, HCJ
            Dated: Bronx, New York
                   February 22, 2024

            1
             While respondents raised a counterclaim for rent overcharge, and entitlement to a refund of
            any rent paid in excess of the legal rent from July 2019 through January 2023, they also
            acknowledge their participation in the federal Section 8 rent subsidy program and have
            provided copies of NYCHA letters showing their “Tenant Portion” was $723 effective November
            1, 2018, reduced to $0.00 effective November 1, 2019 [NYSCEF Doc. #17]. As the “Tenant
            Portion” is generally based on the household’s income, see 24 CFR Part 982, and not on the
            amount of rent charged, the substance of respondents’ rent overcharge claim is not clear.
                                                                                                   4|Page

                                                         4 of 4
[* 4]