Sirul Realty Corp. v Silverstein

Annotate this Case
[*1] Sirul Realty Corp. v Silverstein 2012 NY Slip Op 50633(U) Decided on April 4, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2011-2010 K C.

Sirul Realty Corp., Appellant,

against

Susan Silverstein, Respondent, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE," Undertenants.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John S. Lansden, J.), entered March 7, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting landlord's motion to restore the matter to the calendar for the entry of a final judgment and issuance of a warrant, conditionally stayed the execution of the warrant. The appeal is deemed to be from so much of a final judgment of the same court entered March 7, 2011 as, upon awarding possession to landlord, conditionally stayed the execution of the warrant (see CPLR 5512 [a]).


ORDERED that the final judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In the circumstances presented, including the fact that tenant's default under the stipulation settling this chronic-nonpayment holdover proceeding occurred after 18 months of her strict compliance therewith, and was occasioned by severe weather and tenant's advanced age and infirmity, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in conditionally staying the execution of the warrant (see 1215 Realty Assoc., LLC v Thomas, 32 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51320[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; cf. 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377 [2008]).

Accordingly, the final judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

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.