Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of respondent’s motion for summary judgmentPapers NumberedNotice of motion & Affidavits Annexed 1Order to show CauseNotice of Cross-motion and Affidavits AnnexedAnswering Affidavits 2Replying Affidavits 3OtherDECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion is as follows:After the expiration of a Seven Day Notice of Termination (the “Notice”), Petitioner commenced this summary proceeding seeking to recover possession of the 2nd floor, room 2A (the “Apartment”), in the building located at 124 Grafton Street, in Brooklyn. The notice alleges that respondent is a week-to week tenant and seeks to terminate that tenancy.The matter first appeared on the court’s calendar on January 3, 2018. It was adjourned to February 1, 2018 for trial. Respondent retained counsel and moved for dismissal. On June 22, 2018, Judge Ofshtein issued an order denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that while the current deed was in “Monica Hartley’s” name, petitioner, her nephew, had petitioned the Surrogate Court to probate Mrs. Hartley’s estate and the process was ongoing.Respondent, by counsel, now moves seeking leave to file a late answer and for summary judgment on the grounds that petitioner failed to properly plead a cause of action in that petitioner is not the landlord; petitioner lacks standing to initiate this proceeding and the notice of termination is defective since it fails to terminate on the appropriate termination date.Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, one to be granted only when there is no doubt that no triable issue of material fact exists (Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1978]). The proponent of summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). If the movant succeeds in doing so, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate, through the presentation of evidence in admissible form, the existence of a factual issue requiring trial (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560). The “shadowy semblance” of an issue is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (S.J. Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341 [1974]), nor “mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions,” (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562).Respondent asserts that petitioner lacks standing to initiate this proceeding. In particular, respondent states petitioner is not the landlord and has no ownership interest in the subject premises. Paragraph eleven of respondent’s affirmation reveals that after respondent’s review of the public records on the Automated City Register Information system (“ACRIS”), there is no recorded deed in the name of Junior Styles to prove ownership of the subject premises. In fact, respondent alludes to the last recorded deed on ACRIS, dated September 30, 1986 showing ownership of the subject premises to Monica Hartley.“A [petitioner] lacks standing if it does not have a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome of the litigation.” (See Community Board 7 of the Borough of Manhattan v. Schaffer, 84 N.Y.2d 148, 639 N.E.2d 1 (1996)).Paragraph one of Petitioner’s affirmation to respondent’s motion asserts that he purchased the subject premises at auction on September 12, 2000. However, no such evidence of the alleged purchase has been provided to this court in his opposition. Petitioner also admits that the deed is not in his name as he states “[t]he transferring over and signing off the deed from my grand aunt Monica Hartley, who is deceased, is still in process…” Petitioner also acknowledges that Monica Hartley’s estate is currently being probated in Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court. There is no evidence of any subsequent conveyance from Monica Hartley to Junior Styles, no evidence of a referee’s deed and no evidence that title has passed to petitioner as a result of the current proceeding in Brooklyn’s Surrogate Court, or that he has any authority to act as landlord of the building.In the absence of any evidence that petitioner holds any interest in the building, this proceeding must be and is dismissed due to petitioner’s lack of standing.Accordingly, respondent’s motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed. All other aspects of respondent’s motion are deemed moot. This is the decision and order of the court.Dated: New York, New YorkOctober 4, 2018
