M & M Plaza Assoc., LLC v Pusey

[*1] M & M Plaza Assoc., LLC v Pusey 2014 NY Slip Op 51541(U) Decided on October 3, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 3, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-2163 K C

M & M Plaza Associates, LLC, Respondent,

against

Kenya Pusey, Appellant, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE," Undertenants.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gary Franklin Marton, J.), entered September 12, 2013. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding based on a claim that tenant had failed to sign a renewal lease, the Civil Court found, after a nonjury trial, that tenant had entered into possession pursuant to an October 1, 2008 lease at a preferential rate of $900; that, in a prior nonpayment proceeding, the Civil Court had found that the rent had remained $900 through the date of the court's July 17, 2012 decision, because no renewal leases had been executed; that, shortly thereafter, landlord had sent tenant a renewal lease on July 20, 2012 and again on August 2, 2012 with a rent of $918 for a one-year lease or $936 for a two-year lease, in compliance with Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR) § 2523.5; and that tenant had failed to execute the renewal lease. Tenant pro se claims on this appeal, as she did in the Civil Court, that she was within her rights in refusing to execute a renewal lease because she is a month-to-month tenant entitled to a new lease at $900 per month.

Tenant's contention that she was entitled to a new lease with no increase in rent, rather than a renewal lease with the increase sought by landlord, is without merit (see RSC § 2523.5 [c] [1]; Santorini Equities, Inc. v Picarra, 72 AD3d 73 [2010]). We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: October 03, 2014