H.S. Realty Assoc., Inc. v Ilagan

[*1] H.S. Realty Assoc., Inc. v Ilagan 2015 NY Slip Op 50268(U) Decided on March 4, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 4, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570891/13

H.S. Realty Associates, Inc., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -

against

Nimfa Ilagan, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- "John and/or Jane Doe," Respondent-Undertenant.

Tenant, as limited by her briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated August 8, 2013, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and a final judgment (Phyllis K. Saxe, J.), entered February 10, 2014, after a nonjury trial, which awarded landlord possession and a recovery of rent arrears in the principal sum of $10,522.28.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Phyllis K. Saxe, J.), entered February 10, 2014, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.

Landlord's written rent demand, which specified the amount of rent arrears allegedly due and the period during which such rent accrued, satisfied the requirements of RPAPL 711(2) and was a sufficient predicate for the maintenance of this nonpayment summary proceeding (see Brusco v Miller, 167 Misc 2d 54 [1995]). Any substantive dispute over the amount of rent arrears actually owed is a matter inappropriately addressed in the context of tenant's pretrial dismissal motion, and this, even if as tenant now argues, the motion can be read to challenge the sufficiency of the underlying rent demand (see Seventh Ave. Assoc., LLC v 501 Seventh Ave. Bake Corp., 7 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50799[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]). We note that tenant does not now challenge the propriety of the trial court's merits determination on the landlord's underlying rent claim.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 04, 2015