Mozaffari v Schatz
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 26, 2006
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
Mahmoud Mozaffari, Petitioner-Landlord,
against
Patricia Schatz and MICHAEL SCHATZ Respondents-Tenants, "JOHN DOE" and/or "JANE DOE", Respondents-Undertenants.
058297/06
Attorney for Petitioner
Finkelstein Newman LLP
By: Matthias Li, Esq.
225 Broadway, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 619-5400
Attorney for Respondent
Jefferey S. Ween &Associates
By: Jeffrey S. Ween, Esq.
150 Broadway, Suite 1616
New York, New York 10038
(212) 964-1822
Pam Jackman-Brown, J.
Respondents move pursuant to CPLR § 2201 for an order staying the instant owner use holdover proceeding pending the determination of Respondent Patricia Schatz's discrimination complaint by the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter "Division").
Facts and Procedural History
Respondents, husband and wife, reside in the 2nd floor apartment of the building known as and located at 111 Chambers Street, New York, New York. Patricia Schatz claims to suffer from progressive hearing loss as a result of a diabetic condition. She sought Petitioner, Mahmoud Mozaffari's consent to harbor a hearing dog in her apartment. Petitioner denied his consent and Respondent filed a complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter "HUD") on or about October 14, 2005. The complaint charged [*2]Petitioner with violating §§ 3603 (a) (2) and 3603 (b) of the United States Fair Housing Act by engaging in discriminatory practices relating to her housing. On October 23, 2005 HUD transferred the complaint to the Division for processing. After investigation, the Division determined that it had jurisdiction over the matter and that there was probable cause to believe that the Petitioner had engaged in or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practices. Based on these findings, the agency recommended the matter for public hearing.
On or about October 26, 2006, Petitioner served Respondents with a Notice of Nonrenewal and Termination. On February 27, 2006, Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding by filing of a Notice of Petition and Petition. Contending that resolution of the issue before the Division will impact upon the viability of this proceeding, Respondent filed the instant motion on March 30, 2006 for a stay pending a final determination by the Division. On or about March 30, 2006, Petitioner notified the Division that he was withdrawing his objections to the presence of a hearing dog in Respondents' apartment without conceding that Patricia Schatz is disabled or that she requires a service animal.
Discussion
CPLR § 2201 permits a court to stay its own proceeding upon such terms as may be just. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists between a court and an administrative agency, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction generally requires the judicial tribune to defer pending resolution of the administrative proceeding. Eli Haddad Corp. v. Cal Redmond Studio, 102 AD2d 730 [1st Dept 1984]. A stay is preferable where the issues to be resolved are particularly within the expertise and experience of the administrative body. Capers v. Giuliani, 253 AD2d 630 [1st Dept 1998]. When a discrimination complaint implicates the subject living accommodation, a stay will be granted unless the Petitioner can establish an independent nondiscriminatory basis for seeking possession of the subject apartment. Ennismore Apartments v. Gottlieb, NYLJ, Sept. 24, 1992, at 24, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept].
In the instant case, Petitioner does not have a colorable cause of action independent of Respondent's discrimination claim. Mozaffari seeks possession solely on the grounds that he intends to combine Respondent's apartment with his third floor apartment to accommodate he and his family. Rent Stabilization Code 9 NYCRR § 2524.4(a) allows a landlord to commence a proceeding to recover a rent stabilized apartment upon expiration of the existing lease when he intends to use it for his personal use. However, this provision does not apply where the rent stabilized tenant or the tenant's spouse is disabled. RSC 9 NYCRR § 2524.4 (a) (2). If Ms. Schatz is disabled as she claims, Petitioner would have no legal basis for refusing to renew her lease.
Mozaffari argues that there is no controversy before the Division because he withdrew his objection to a hearing dog. The Court does not agree. The Division is vested with the authority to "receive, investigate and pass upon complaints alleging violations of" the State's Human Rights Law and impose broad equitable remedies including injunctive relief and civil penalties upon a finding of discrimination. 9 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations § 295. Once a complaint is filed, it may only be withdrawn or discontinued by the complainant or dismissed by the agency. 9 NYCRR §§ 465.5 (a), (c), (d). Ms. Schatz has done nothing to indicate that she no longer wishes to pursue her claim nor has it been dismissed by the Division. Therefore, her claim remains viable and the Division retains jurisdiction to investigate and fashion an appropriate remedy. To allow Petitioner to avoid administrative review by changing courses midstream would deny Respondent her right to those remedies which are not available [*3]from this court.
Petitioner's contention that the issues in the instant case are not intertwined with the human rights proceeding is also without merit. Petitioner argues that the meaning of 'handicapped' in the discrimination case differs from the meaning of 'disabled' under the RSC. However, in East 72nd Realty, LLC v. Dakis, NYLJ Aug. 26, 1998, at 22 , col 6 the Civil Court held that the ultimate disposition of a summary proceeding may hinge upon HUD's finding in a handicap discrimination complaint. The tenant Dakis claimed he needed a dog for companionship to cope with his disability. He filed a discrimination complaint against his landlord who attempted to enforce the no pet clause in tenant's lease. In granting a stay, the court reasoned that if HUD found that the landlord had improperly refused to accommodate the tenant the refusal would constitute a valid defense to the holdover proceeding.
For all the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay this proceeding is granted. This proceeding is marked off calendar pending a final disposition of Respondent's administrative complaint. Respondents are ordered to pay monthly use and occupancy in
accordance with their latest renewal lease.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated May 26, 2006____________________________________
PAM B. JACKMAN BROWN, JHC
Copies to:
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.
