Putnam Realty Assoc., LLC v Piggot

[*1] Putnam Realty Assoc., LLC v Piggot 2014 NY Slip Op 51306(U) Decided on August 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 20, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-525 K C

Putnam Realty Associates, LLC, Appellant,

against

Matthew Piggot, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Marcia J. Sikowitz, J.), dated January 19, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of occupant's motion seeking to dismiss the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, landlord seeks to recover rent arrears, alleging that occupant owes these arrears as a successor to a rent-stabilized lease. Occupant moved to, among other things, dismiss the petition on the ground that a nonpayment proceeding does not lie, as the parties had not yet entered into a renewal lease. The Civil Court, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, granted the branch of occupant's motion seeking to dismiss the petition.

A nonpayment proceeding can be maintained only where there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and must be predicated on an agreement to pay rent (RPAPL 711 [2]; Strand Hill Assoc. v Gassenbauer, 41 Misc 3d 53 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; 615 Nostrand Ave. Corp. v Roach, 15 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). A nonpayment proceeding does not lie to recover arrears from a successor to a rent-stabilized lease, since the successor is not a tenant until he becomes a party to a lease or rental agreement (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [d]; Strand Hill Assoc., 41 Misc 3d 53; see also 245 Realty Assoc. v Sussis, 243 AD2d 29, 35 [1998]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 20, 2014