570653/17. Jenkins, Kendall v. Sarshar, H., Ferdos Capital, LLC et al.,It is Ordered that the defendants-respondents’ motion which seeks to dismiss the appeal is denied, without opposition. The appeal is calendared for the January 2018 term. The remainder of the defendants-respondents’ motion seeking to enlarge the respondents’ time to serve and file its brief is granted, without opposition. Respondent’s Brief is to be served and filed by December 7, 2017. Reply brief, if any, is to be served and filed by December 14, 2017.570667/17. Franpearl LLC v. Orenstein, Jeffrey L.It is Ordered that the tenant-respondent’s motion seeking to adjourn the appeal to the February 2018 term is granted, without opposition. Respondent’s Brief is to be served and filed by January 4, 2018. Reply brief, if any, is to be served and filed by January 12, 2018. 570007/17. Jasper, Anthony Jr., v. City of New York Corporation CouncilIt is Ordered that the motion and cross-motion are consolidated for disposition.It is further Ordered that defendant-respondent’s motion is granted. The appeal is calendared for the January 2018 term. Respondent’s Brief is to be served and filed by December 6, 2017. Reply Brief, if any, is to be served and filed by December 14, 2017.It is also further Ordered that plaintiff-appellant’s cross-motion is denied.570128/17. Severino, Kenia v. De Leon, B. & Montes De Oca, Y.It is Ordered that the motions returnable November 27, 2017 and November 24, 2017 are consolidated for disposition.It is further Ordered that defendant-respondent’s motion seeking to dismiss the appeal is granted, without opposition.It is also further Ordered that claimant-appellant’s motion seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is denied, without opposition, as moot.570751/17. Grace Group Inc., v. McKethan, DeniseIt is Ordered that the respondent-appellant’s motion seeking to stay the enforcement of the final judgment and warrant of eviction is denied. 570727/17. U.S. Equities Corp., v. Sylla, ElhadjiIt is Ordered that the plaintiff-appellant’s motion seeking to stay all proceedings in the above captioned matter is denied.570724/17. U.S. Equities Corp., v. Miller, RobertIt is Ordered that the plaintiff-appellant’s motion seeking to stay all proceedings in the above captioned matter is denied.570729/17. East Midtown Plaza Housing Co. Inc v. Gamble, Sherman & TorriIt is Ordered that the respondents-appellants’ motion seeking to stay the enforcement of the final judgment and warrant of eviction is denied.570701/17. Easy Care Acupuncture a/a/o Nuamah, J. v. The Hartford Ins. Co.It is Ordered that the defendant-respondent’s motion seeking to dismiss the appeal is granted unless the appellant perfects its appeal by the February 2018 term – the filing deadline is December 12, 2017.No further extensions will be granted.In the event of appellant’s failure to comply with the foregoing condition, respondent may move on five days’ notice for an order dismissing the appeal.By: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.17-324. 92 COOPER ASSOC., LLC, pet-lan-res, v. PEGGY ROUGHTON-HESTER A/K/A PEGGY MALOOF, res-ten-app — Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about November 7, 2016, reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to abide the event.Upon the trial of this holdover proceeding based on nonprimary residence, the evidence showed, and the court found that tenant had “split her time almost evenly between” a house in Montrose, Pennsylvania, and the subject Manhattan apartment. However, in awarding possession to landlord, the court erroneously concluded that tenant’s Pennsylvania voter registration and tax filings were “dispositive” on the issue of nonprimary residence, citing Matter of Ansonia Assoc. L.P. v. Unwin, 130 AD3d 453 (2015), and Goldman v. Davis, 49 Misc 3d 16 (App Term, 1st Dept 2015).“[N]o single factor shall be solely determinative” of primary residence (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2520.6[u]; see e.g. Glenbriar Co. v. Lipsman, 11 AD3d 352, 353 [2004], affd on other grounds 5 NY3d 388 [2005]; Village Dev. Assoc. v. Walker, 282 AD2d 369 [2001]). The cases relied upon by Civil Court involved tenants who deducted 100 percent of their rent as a business deduction on tax returns, a position logically incompatible with primary residence, and are therefore distinguishable (see 47 HK Realty, LLC v. O’Leary, 55 Misc 3d 129[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50384[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]). No such circumstances exist in the matter at bar.In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). However, not every case lends itself to this procedure (see Pordy v. Scot Serv. Co., 15 AD2d 911 [1962]). When we disregard the erroneous conclusion that the tax returns and voter registration are dispositive, the issues presented are much closer, and much would depend on the court’s consideration of all relevant factors (see RSC §2520.6[u]) and its credibility determinations (see generally New York City Hous. Auth. (Baruch Houses) v. Martinez, 49 Misc 3d 135[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51484[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). In the circumstances, the interests of justice would best be served by a new trial.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.NOVEMBER 30, 201717-325. 360-364 THIRD OWNER LLC, pet-lan-app, v. WILLIAM MURRAY, res-ten-res, -and- STEVEN COVACCI, “JOHN DOE” AND/OR “JANE DOE”, res — Order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered on February 2, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.The evidentiary proof submitted by tenant established, prima facie, that the legal rent for the subject apartment did not reach the $2,000 deregulation threshold in effect during the relevant period (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §2520.11[r][4]), thus establishing his burden as the proponent of a motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition premised upon the expiration of tenant’s unregulated lease.In opposition, landlord failed to raise any triable issue that the apartment was properly deregulated pursuant to the high rent deregulation provisions, given the glaring gaps and undisputed mischaracterizations in the rent registration records filed with DHCR, and the absence of any evidence corroborating landlord’s version of a rental history of the apartment that is not reflected in any registration statement.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.NOVEMBER 30, 201717-335. RSL 121 EAST 82ND LLC, pet-lan-res, v. JILLIAN FINN, res-ten-app — Appeal from order (Laurie L. Lau, J.), dated June 30, 2016, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same court and Judge), entered on July 8, 2016, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), final judgment affirmed, without costs.The hearing evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court’s finding that tenant breached the parties’ probationary stipulation in this chronic rent delinquency holdover proceeding by failing to timely pay the June 2015 rent and then failing to pay any rent for the period November 2015 through March 2016. Nor did tenant establish an excuse for her default pursuant to the “documented medical emergency” provision of the stipulation. The hearing evidence showed and Civil Court determined that “tenant present[ed] no [new] documentary evidence of her medical condition as would have excused her default under the probationary stipulation,” nor any proof of any ability to become current under the stipulation, the arrears for which then totaled nearly $9,000. Given tenant’s extensive history of rent defaults, which continued unabated into the probationary term agreed to by the parties, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to enforce the stipulation by its terms, which provided for no further defaults and allow for the eviction of tenant (see Wadsworth Ventura Assoc. 367 LLC v. Frias, 101 AD3d 474 [2012]; Henry Hudson Gardens, L.L.C. v. Bareda, 25 AD3d 466 [2006]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 30, 2017
