Horseshoe Realty, LLC v Meah

Annotate this Case
[*1] Horseshoe Realty, LLC v Meah 2015 NY Slip Op 50370(U) Decided on March 26, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through March 30, 2015; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 26, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
15-112

Horseshoe Realty, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -

against

Jahed H. Meah, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, - and - Nima Yamini, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 17, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate a default final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 17, 2014, reversed, without costs, motion granted, default final judgment vacated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings on the holdover petition.

Considering the strong policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits (see Chevalier v 368 E. 148th St. Assoc., LLC, 80 AD3d 411, 413—414 [2011]), we favorably exercise our discretion to relieve the rent stabilized tenant of the default final judgment entered in this holdover summary proceeding. Tenant's brief, isolated nonappearance was neither willful nor intentional, and was not shown to have caused landlord any discernible prejudice. Tenant also demonstrated a meritorious defense to underlying holdover proceeding based upon allegations of profiteering in relation to an unauthorized sublet. In this regard, tenant alleged, inter alia, that the alleged subtenant, one Yamini, was not a subtenant, but a roommate who vacated after one month, and thus no cause of action for rent profiteering lies (see First Hudson Capital, LLC v Seaborn, 54 AD3d 251 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 26, 2015

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.