Grossman v Homenny

[*1] Grossman v Homenny 2007 NY Slip Op 51908(U) [17 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on October 3, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 3, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ
570258/07.

Anita S. Grossman, Mitchell M. Grossman and Philip J. Grossman, Petitioners-Landlords-Appellants,

against

George Homenny and Ann Homenny, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.

Landlords appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated February 20, 2007, which denied their motion to restore the action to the calendar and granted tenants' cross motion to dismiss the summary holdover proceeding.

Per Curiam.
Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated February 20, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In support of their motion to restore this "summary" eviction proceeding 22 months after the case was marked off the calendar, landlords submitted a one-page affirmation of counsel. Landlords' terse submission failed to demonstrate a meritorious claim, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the proceeding and an absence of prejudice to the elderly tenants. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of landlords' motion (see 85th Columbus Corp. v Grail, 11 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50465[U] [2006]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: October 3, 2007