Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of this motion:Papers NumberedNotice of Motion and Affidavits Attached 1Affirmation in Opposition and Affidavits Annexed 2Answering AffidavitsReplying Affidavits 3Exhibits 4Oral ArgumentDECISION Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:Respondent moves to renew and reargue, pursuant to the Civil Practice Laws and Rules (CPLR) Section 2221, this court’s decision dated December 4, 2018. Respondent alleges that it was not aware of an unpublished Supreme Court decision granting a preliminary injunction against petitioner from managing, operating or leasing the subject premises. Respondent contends that the HAP Section 8 lease between the parties, referred to in this court’s December 4, 2018 decision, lists the address of premises as 1509 Park Place as opposed to the address of the subject premises which is 1507 Park Place.Petitioner opposes and argues the motion to renew should not be granted because the Supreme Court decision is unrelated to this proceeding in that it concerns 1509 Park Place, not the subject premises. Petitioner also argues that the court should deny the motion to reargue because the HPD Section 8 lease for 1509 Park Place between the parties lists the correct address because the address of 1509 Park Place has been changed by the City of New York to become 1507 Park Place. Both parties agree that there is a purported change made by the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President reassigning the addresses of Lot 77, 78, and 79 as follows: Lot 79, 1507 Park Place; Lot 78, 1509 Park Place to 1507 Park Place; Lot 77, 1509A Park Place stays as is. The purported reassignments were made on November 28, 2016. Parties also agree that the lease agreement between petitioner and respondent was for Apartment 3 at 1509 Park Place. and that respondent is and has always been in possession of that unit.Respondent’s motion to renew and reargue is granted.After careful review of the record and the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Homes Sales Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 30390(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings, January 26, 2016) (Brown), the December 4, 2018 decision is hereby vacated and the proceeding is dismissed.The Brown court meticulously reviewed the chains of title for the subject premises and the adjacent property at 1507 Park Place (a/k/a 1505 Park Place), and determined that plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction because plaintiff “adequately documented and evidenced the chain of title to the property at 1509 Park Place since 2002…[and that] there is an apparent danger that Thomas [respondent herein], may attempt to exercise an ownership interests in the property.” Brown, p. 25. Moreover, careful reading of the HAP Section 8 lease shows that the parties indeed agreed to lease the property located at 1509 Park Place not 1507 Park Place. Petitioners’ acrobatic attempts to explain that the address on the lease is the same as that of the subject premises, but nonetheless is not subject to the Supreme Court’s order. is implausible. Absent a showing that respondent is no longer enjoined from managing, operating or leasing the property located at 1509 Park Place purportedly reassigned as 1507 Park Place, the subject premises, this court must adhere to the Supreme Court’s determination.This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.Dated: February 21, 2019
