Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of respondent’s order to show cause for vacating the judgment based upon failure to comply with the stipulation: Papers Numbered Respondent’s Order to Show Cause; Affidavit in Support 1 Petitioner’s Affirmation in Opposition Respondent’s Reply Affirmation DECISION / ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, the Decision/Order of this Court is as follows: Respondents’ order to show cause is granted to the following extent: It is undisputed that respondents have been paying ongoing use and occupancy. The issue before the court is whether, pursuant to the amendments to RPAPL Section 753 enacted as part of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, the court can extend a stay which afforded respondents five months to vacate. As set forth in RPAPL Section 753, the court can stay issuance [execution] of a judgment and warrant for a period of up to one year if it would “occasion extreme hardship to the applicant or the applicant’s family if the stay were not granted. In determining whether refusal to grant a stay would occasion extreme hardship, the court shall consider serious ill health, significant exacerbation of an ongoing condition, a child’s enrollment in a local school, and any other extenuating life circumstances affecting the ability of the applicant or the applicant’s family to relocate and maintain quality of life. The court shall consider any substantial hardship the stay may impose on the landlord in determining whether to grant the stay in setting the length or other terms of the stay.” In this instance, respondent Cherity Wilson suffers from ovarian cancer. She has also been diagnosed with breast cancer. She is undergoing radiation three days per week and chemotherapy two days per week. These treatments are expected to continue for approximately three months. Ms. Wilson also suffers from a blood-clotting disorder which complicates her treatment. The respondents have three children, two of whom are nine and one who is eight. They are attending school in the area nearby the premises. Ms. Wilson has advised the court of the after-effects of radiation and the court believes these treatments increase the level of responsibility Mr. Jones has in caring not only for Ms. Wilson but also their children as Ms. Wilson is incapacitated following treatment. It is also obvious to the court that treatment along with the uncertainty attendant with respondent’s complicated medical history places an incredible level of stress on this family’s emotional and potentially financial resources. Petitioner, on the other hand, is an institutional landlord who would suffer no hardship if respondents were allowed to remain in the premises for a substantial time period. Respondents are paying ongoing use and occupancy and their presence does not affect their neighbors in a negative way. Respondents’ request for an extended stay is of the exact nature the amendments to the statute were enacted to address. It is uncontroverted that the court’s failure to extend a stay would cause an extreme hardship to respondents. Based upon the foregoing, execution of the judgment and warrant are stayed though January 31, 2020 to allow respondent Cherity Wilson to complete medical treatment. In the event respondents do not vacate, a notice of eviction may be served subsequent to the default. Respondents are to pay ongoing use and occupancy each month. APS [New York City Adult Protective Services] is to be notified prior to any eviction. Petitioner is ordered to provide respondents who were deemed licensees of the former tenant of record with information on application for NYCHA housing and to place them on a priority list for such housing if they qualify for same. Said information must be supplied by October 15, 2019. Dated: September 25, 2019 New York, New York
