205 E. 77th St. Tenants Corp. v Meadow

Annotate this Case
[*1] 205 E. 77th St. Tenants Corp. v Meadow 2013 NY Slip Op 51857(U) Decided on November 14, 2013 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 14, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570127/13.

205 E. 77th St. Tenants Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, - -

against

Jon C. Meadow, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (John H. Stanley, J.), dated January 2, 2013, which, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding and directed a hearing to determine whether tenant cured the objectionable conduct.


Per Curiam.

Order (John H. Stanley, J.), dated January 2, 2013, reversed, with $10 costs, landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession granted and the court's directive that a cure hearing be held vacated. Issuance of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

The cure provisions of RPAPL 753(4) find no application to this holdover summary proceeding, in view of Supreme Court's prior (unappealed) determination that tenant's proprietary lease was validly terminated based upon his repeated instances of "objectionable conduct" (see RPAPL 753[3]; Chi-Am Realty, LLC v Guddahl, 33 AD3d 911 [2006]). Tenant is also precluded from asserting a right to cure under familiar principles of collateral estoppel, based upon Supreme Court's express determination that the conduct at issue is not capable of cure (see H.K.D. Seafood v 25 N. Moore Assoc., 271 AD2d 351 [2000]; P.W.B. Enters. v Moklam Enters., 221 AD2d 184 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: November 14, 2013

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.