Recitation, as required by CPLR section 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:Papers NumberedPetition and Notice of Petition 1Stipulation of Settlement 2Order to Show Cause 3Decision/Order dated 3/23/18 4Notice of Cross Motion 5Affirmation in Opposition & Cross Motion 6DECISION/ORDER Petitioner commenced the instant summary holdover proceeding in July 2017. On January 3, 2018 the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. All parties were represented by counsel. The stipulation provided for a final judgment of possession in favor of petitioner with the warrant of eviction to issue forthwith. Execution of the warrant was stayed to December 31, 2017 for respondents to vacate. In the event respondent paid use and occupancy for January and February 2018 execution was further stayed to February 28, 2018. The stipulation further provided that petitioner reserves his claim for monies owed and respondents reserve their defenses.Respondents failed to vacate and moved by Order to Show Cause for an order staying the execution of the warrant and extending respondents’ time to vacate. Petitioner opposes the motion and cross moves for an order pursuant to RPAPL §749(3) for all outstanding money owed for use and occupancy. Respondent opposes the cross motion.By decision and Order dated March 23, 2018 respondents’ Order to Show Cause was granted by Hon. Maria Ressos to the extent of staying the execution of the warrant until April 6, 2018 for payment of April 2018 use and occupancy and if paid until April 30, 2018. Petitioner’s cross motion was adjourned for respondent to serve and file opposition.Typically, the central goal of a summary proceeding is to determine the right to possession of the subject premises. Collender v. Smith, 20 Misc. 612, 45 N.Y.S. 1130 (App. Term 1897). See also 36 Main Realty Corp v. Wang law Office, PLLC, 49 Misc.3d 51, 19 N.Y.S.3d 654 (2015). The two-attorney stipulation in the instant case did not provide for the entry of a money judgment in the event respondents failed to vacate. See, VM Realty, LLC v./ Weingarten, 52 Misc.3d 131(A), 38 N.Y.S.3f 833 (App. Term 2nd Dept., 2016).Petitioner’s cross motion is denied. This denial is without prejudice to petitioner’s claims and respondents’ defenses which may be pursued in a plenary action.Dated: Queens, New YorkApril 24, 2018
