Gonzales v Zinner

Annotate this Case
[*1] Gonzales v Zinner 2010 NY Slip Op 52072(U) [29 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on December 1, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 1, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., McKeon, Shulman, JJ
570261/07.

Maria Gonzales and Alvaro Gonzales and other tenants of 235 West 146th Street, Petitioners-Tenants-Respondents,

against

Ihay Zinner and LKH Assets, LLC, Respondents-Landlords, -and- Washington Mutual Bank, Respondent, -and- Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Respondent-Respondent, -and- Esquire Group Estates, LLC, Chase Group Alliance, LLC and Vintage Ventures, LLC, Intervenors-Appellants.

Intervenors Esquire Group Estates, LLC, and Vintage Ventures, LLC, appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), dated September 30, 2009, which granted the motion of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (DHPD) to clarify a provision of an order of the same court (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), dated December 21, 2007, that DHPD has the authority to issue loans to the RPAPL article 7-A administrator for repair of the subject buildings and to place liens against these properties related to the loans without prior court [*2]approval for each such DHPD loan.


Per Curiam.
Order (David B. Cohen, J.), dated September 30, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We affirm the order on appeal largely for the reasons stated by David B. Cohen, J. at Civil Court (see generally Rosenbaum v City of New York, 96 NY2d 468 [2001]). We note that Civil Court properly interpreted and clarified the prior order of that court, giving effect to each of the relevant provisions of that order, as well as the terms of the applicable statute (see RPAPL § 778[1]) to which the order referred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 01, 2010

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.