2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco

Annotate this Case
[*1] 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco 2007 NY Slip Op 51099(U) [15 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on May 30, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 30, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., McCOOE, DAVIS, JJ
570292/06.

2246 Holding Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Maria Jiminez Nolasco, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), dated July 26, 2006, which granted tenant's motion for a stay of execution of a warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding based upon chronic nonpayment of rent. Landlord appeals and tenant cross-appeals from an order of the same court (Louis Villella, J.), entered October 10, 2006, which, inter alia, granted tenant's motion for a further stay of execution of the warrant of eviction.


Per Curiam.

Order (Louis Villella, J.), entered October 10, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, and tenant's motion denied. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from the service of a copy of this order with
notice of entry. Appeal from order (David B. Cohen, J.), dated July 26, 2006, dismissed, without costs, as
academic.

Tenant repeatedly failed to comply with the "time is of the essence" payment terms of the parties' so-ordered stipulation settling this chronic rent delinquency holdover proceeding. Given tenant's extensive history of defaults, which continued unabated into the probationary term agreed to by the parties, a further (third) stay of execution of the warrant of eviction was unwarranted. Tenant's cross appeal, not having been briefed, is deemed abandoned.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: May 30, 2007

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.