Springer v Joseph

[*1] Springer v Joseph 2012 NY Slip Op 50626(U) Decided on April 4, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 4, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-456 K C.

Mel Springer, Respondent,

against

Joanne Joseph, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Anthony J. Fiorella, Jr., J.), entered February 10, 2011. The order granted tenant's motion, in effect, to stay the execution of the warrant for 40 days, to the extent of staying the execution of the warrant until February 14, 2011 for tenant to pay the sum of $553, representing her share of the rent from August 2010 through February 2011, and, if paid, until February 28, 2011 for tenant to vacate the premises, in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this holdover proceeding, tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered February 10, 2011 which granted her motion, in effect, to stay the execution of the warrant for 40 days, to the extent of staying the execution of the warrant until February 14, 2011 for tenant to pay the sum of $553, representing her share of the rent from August 2010 through February 2011, and, if paid, until February 28, 2011 for tenant to vacate the premises. On appeal, tenant contends that the rent had been overpaid by New York City Housing Authority and the Department of Social Services and that nothing was owed.

In our view, the appeal must be dismissed as moot since the relief sought by tenant, i.e., a stay of 40 days, has expired and tenant failed to make the payment as directed in the Civil Court's order (see State of New York v General Electric Co., 103 AD2d 985 [1984]; Hillside Place, LLC v Lewis, 32 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51534[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). We note that nothing in the record justifies invocation of an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 04, 2012