The following numbered papers were read on this application: NYSCEF Doc No. 25: Letter from Mehrdad Kohanim, Esq. to Court, submitted by Defendants NYSCEF Doc No. 26: Proposed Order to Show Cause, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 27: Affirmation of Tamara Harris, Esq., submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 28: Affidavit of Marina Sambula, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 29: Exhibit A — Complaint, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 30: Exhibit B — Receipts, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 31: Exhibit C — Prior Order to Show Cause, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 32: Exhibit D — Discontinuance of Proceeding, Kings County Index No. L&T 300002-22/KI, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 33: Affirmation re Submission of Proposed Order to Show Cause, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 34: Exhibit E — Email re Submission of Proposed Order to Show Cause with Stay, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 35: Letter from Mehrdad Kohanim, Esq. to Court; Petition, Kings County Index No. L&T 308586-23/KI, submitted by Defendants NYSCEF Doc No. 36: Proposed Order to Show Cause Annotated by Court NYSCEF Doc No. 37: Proposed Order to Show Cause Annotated by Court DECISION The Drastic Relief Sought by Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula On August 15, 2023, there came before this Court an application for a temporary restraining order contained within a proposed order to show cause submitted by the plaintiff Marina Sambula (referred to herein as “Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula” or “Tenant Sambula”) for signature (see NYSCEF Doc No. 26, Proposed Order to Show Cause).1 Oral argument was conducted; appearing were Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula’s counsel as well as counsel for the defendants herein Modi Realty Corp (referred to herein as “Defendant-Landlord Modi Realty” or “Landlord Modi Realty”) and Girdhar Modi, its principal (“Defendant Girdhar Modi”). The within action in Supreme Court seeks an injunction against Defendants from harassing or threatening Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula and damages for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from the latter’s tenancy of an outdoor parking lot located on property owned by Defendant-Landlord Modi Realty at 180 Sackman Street, in Brooklyn. As shall appear, this matter bears upon the oft-litigated interplay between two parallel proceedings and whether one proceeding should take precedence over another. Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula’s proposed order to show cause sought to bring on a motion for an order “[s]taying the pending Kings County Housing Court action, Index LT-308586-23/KI pending a determination of this case” (id. at 1). A review on NYSCEF of the said “action” reveals that such “action” is not a “Housing Court action,” as it is characterized in Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula’s proposed order to show cause (id. at 1) but, rather, is a commercial holdover proceeding pending in the Kings County Civil Court (“Commercial Holdover Proceeding”) (see NYSCEF Doc No. 35, Holdover Petition2
1-3). Also featured in Plaintiff-Tenant Sambula’s order to show cause is a motion for a drastic temporary restraining order, which reads as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pending a determination of this motion the Kings County housing court action under Index LT 308586-23/KI is stayed. (NYSCEF Doc No. 26, Proposed Order to Show Cause at 1.) The foregoing proposed temporary restraining order cannot be considered as drafted on the following two bases: (1) A temporary restraining order is statutorily designed to allow a party to obtain relief pending a hearing on a motion, as distinguished from pending a “determination” of a motion. As provided by CPLR 6301, a “temporary restraining order may be granted pending a hearing for a preliminary injunction where it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result unless the defendant is restrained before the hearing can be had” [emphasis added]; and (2) The action sought to be stayed is not a “housing court action” but, instead, is a commercial holdover proceeding (see NYSCEF Doc No. 35, Holdover Petition
