149th Partners LP v Watts

[*1] 149th Partners LP v Watts 2015 NY Slip Op 51576(U) Decided on October 30, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 30, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570732/15

149th Partners LP, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Delores Watts, Respondent-Tenant, - and - Delores Lyons, Respondent-Undertenant-Respondent, - and - Rodney Watts, Raymond Watts, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants.

Petitioner-landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated April 7, 2015, which granted respondent-undertenant Delores Lyons' motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Anne Katz, J.), dated April 7, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, respondent Delores Lyons' motion to dismiss the petition denied, and the petition is reinstated.

Respondent-undertenant Lyons may not be heard to argue that the combined (Golub) notice of lease nonrenewal and termination utilized by landlord was not a proper predicate for this holdover proceeding seeking possession based upon the record tenant's alleged nonprimary residence. The relevant notice provisions of the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR §§ 2524.2[c][2], 2524.4[c]) are expressly made applicable only to a tenant. An occupant who is not a party to a lease agreement need not be served with the prescribed notices (see 1700 First Ave. LLC v Parsons-Novak, 46 Misc 3d 30 [2014]; see also 170 W. 85th St. Tenants Assn. v Cruz, 173 AD2d 338 [1991]), and cannot reasonably forestall consideration of landlord's claim of nonprimary residence — a claim directed exclusively against the tenant - on the basis of any claimed infirmity with the notices (see West End Assoc. v McGlone, 32 Misc 3d 145[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). In view of the foregoing, we need not address respondent's technical argument concerning the jurisdictional sufficiency of the underlying notice. Were we to reach it, we would find it unavailing (see Pagano v Cohen, 190 [*2]Misc 2d 308 [2001]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 30, 2015