DECISION AND ORDER This matter came on for argument before this court by way of an order to show cause dated June 1, 2018, that was not issued by the undersigned. It was submitted to another member of this court by the tenant-party in this matter, which is Pilates Island Inc., d/b/a Park East Pilates (the “Tenant”), bearing the title “Order to Show Cause for Restoration and Award of Damages for Unlawful Eviction.” Although an order to show cause may be submitted “in lieu of a notice of petition” in a special proceeding (CPLR 403 [d]; RPAPL 733 [2]), there still must be a petition (see, CPLR 403 [a], [b]; RPAPL 731 [1]), which Tenant has failed to submit. Tenant’s only accompaniment to its procured order to show cause is an affirmation of its counsel, Nathaniel Muller, Esq., dated June 1, 2018 (the “Attorney Affirmation”). By said order to show cause, Tenant asks this court for an order restoring it to premises at 1045 Madison Avenue, Fifth Floor, New York, New York 10075; and enjoining the landlord-party in this matter, 1045 Madison Owner LLC (the “Landlord”), from preventing such restoration and from re-letting said premises. In other words, this ostensible summary proceeding commenced by Tenant in the manner that it did, is in the nature of what is commonly known as a reverse holdover proceeding, or illegal lockout, authorized by RPAPL 713 (10).Tenant, by its procured order to show cause in this ostensible summary proceeding, also asks this court, inter alia, for an order awarding it compensatory, treble, and punitive damages. None of those categories of relief is available within the procedural context of this ostensible RPAPL Article 7 summary proceeding.1 Thus, those categories of relief are denied on that procedural basis.2In stark contrast to the scant and largely defective submission by Tenant, Landlord has submitted a detailed opposition consisting not only of its counsel’s affirmation (Affirmation of Jeremy B. Honig, Esq., dated June 5, 2018 [the "Honig Aff."]); but also the sworn affidavits of actual fact witnesses attesting to relevant matters from their own personal knowledge (Affidavit of Senior Property Manager Tony Nezaj, sworn to June 5, 2018 [the "Nezaj Aff."]; Affidavit of Property Manager Account Executive Andrew Di Schino, sworn to June 5, 2018 [the "Di Schino Aff."], and Affidavit of Landlord Representative Yoseph Manor, sworn to June 5, 2018 [the "Manor Aff."]).BACKGROUNDTenant leased the subject premises from Landlord’s predecessor pursuant to a written and fully executed lease agreement dated December 14, 2016 (Manor Aff.5, Exh. D). That leasehold was extended by way of four separate and successive Extension of Lease Agreements (Manor Aff.5, Exh. E). The final extension expired on December 31, 2017 (see, id., Exh. E [Extension of Lease dated December 26, 2016]).Prior to the December 31, 2017, expiration date, Landlord acquired ownership of the building containing the subject premises by deed dated October 24, 2017 (Manor Aff.3, Exh. C). By written and fully executed Surrender Agreement dated January 5, 2018, Tenant agreed to vacate and surrender the subject premises to Landlord by 3:00 p.m. on May 31, 2018 (the “Vacate Date,” so defined in said agreement at §2), with time being of the essence (Manor Aff.7, Exh. H; Nezaj Aff.9).On May 31, 2018 — the vacate day identified in the Surrender Agreement — Tenant moved out of the subject premises, including all of its heavy Pilates equipment and signage (Di Schino Aff.
7-11). The only items left behind by Tenant were a computer, a ceiling fan, an air conditioner, and some cleaning supplies (id.,10). Although the vacate time stated in the Surrender Agreement was 3:00 p.m. (Manor Aff.7, Exh. H §2), Landlord waited till much later — midnight — before it changed the locks on the subject premises (Di Schino Aff.
