2460 Davidson Realty, LLP v Lopez

[*1] 2460 Davidson Realty, LLP v Lopez 2014 NY Slip Op 50574(U) Decided on April 11, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 11, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J. , Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
571013/13.

2460 Davidson Realty, LLP, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, - -

against

Teodora Lopez, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, - and - Albin Almanzar, Baldwin Almanzar, John Doe and Jane Doe, Respondents.

Landlord appeals from two orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated December 4, 2012 and May 21, 2013, respectively, which granted tenant's motions to stay execution of a warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding based upon chronic rent delinquency.

Per Curiam.

Order (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated May 21, 2013, reversed, without costs, and tenant's motion denied. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry. Appeal from order (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated December 4, 2012, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Tenant repeatedly failed to comply with the unambiguous "time is of the essence" and "[n]o default in payment [is] de minimus" provisions of the so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying chronic rent delinquency holdover proceeding. "Strict enforcement of the parties' stipulation . . . is warranted based upon the principle that parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course" (Mill Rock Plaza Assoc. v Lively, 224 AD2d 301 [1996]). Given tenant's protracted history of rent defaults, which continued with alarming regularity for a 20-month period during the probationary term agreed upon by the parties, a further (fourth) stay of the warrant of eviction was unwarranted (see Henry Hudson Gardens LLC v Bareda, 25 AD3d 466 [2006]). None of the factors variously relied on by tenant in her six post-stipulation show cause orders — be it the length of the tenancy or tenant's belated and bare-bones assertion that she has a(n) (unspecified) "psychiatric" problem — was sufficient to constitute "good cause" (see RPAPL 749[3]) sufficient to warrant the requested relief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.[*2]
Decision Date: April 11, 2014