Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp. v Belmlinsky

[*1] Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp. v Belmlinsky 2009 NY Slip Op 50534(U) [23 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on March 30, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 30, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570530/08.

Gouverneur Gardens Housing Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Julia Belmlinsky, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- Tuan Por Chan, Tsang W. Keung, Siu Wai Chan, Bethany Lin, Siu Ying Chan, John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants- Appellants.

Respondent Tuan Por Chan appeals from 1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), dated May 23, 2008, which denied his motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding, 2) an order (same court and Judge), dated May 23, 2008, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment, and 3) a final judgment (same court and Judge), entered May 23, 2008, which awarded possession to petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J), entered May 23, 2008, affirmed, with $25 costs. Appeals from orders (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), dated May 23, 2008, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.

The Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine tenant eligibility in city-aided Mitchell-Lama housing and its issuance of a certificate of eviction cannot be collaterally attacked in a subsequent summary proceeding (see Bedford Gardens Co., LP v Jacobowitz, 29 AD3d 501 [2006]). The doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked against HPD to prevent it from discharging its statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Mitchell-Lama Law (see Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008]). Nor did petitioner's acceptance of rent constitute a waiver of its right to seek respondent's eviction (see Rasic v Roberts, 277 AD2d 120 [2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.[*2]
Decision Date: March 30, 2009