Justice Ingrid Joseph
Petitioner moved to be restored to a laundry room/office space in this commercial lockout action. His order to show cause was previously denied and he sought renewal and reargument. Petitioner claimed the attorney who filed the original motion inexplicably failed to provide now-submitted documents with the motion. Respondent argued petitioner should be precluded from offering new materials that should have been included on the prior motion. It alleged petitioner was not entitled to occupy the premises as he failed to show New York City approved the lease and rider agreement executed by the prior over-tenant. The court noted the surrender agreement was signed by an Assistant Commissioner for the city, and notarized on April 27, 2006, rebutting the argument petitioner’s lease and rider were not approved by the city. It noted petitioner’s lease and rider agreement, surrender lease agreement and deed between the city and respondent, when examined in conjunction with other documents, may corroborate petitioner’s position his tenancy rights endured through November 2021. Thus, respondent’s right to take possession must be resolved in a summary proceeding. Petitioner was granted leave to renew, and upon same, was restored to possession of the premises.
