Fried v Lopez

[*1] Fried v Lopez 2022 NY Slip Op 50453(U) Decided on May 20, 2022 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 20, 2022
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ
2019-1606 K C

Joel Fried, Appellant,

against

Isabel Lopez and Raul Lopez, Respondents, et al., Undertenants.

Wenig Saltiel, LLP (Dan M. Blumenthal of counsel), for appellant. Communities Resist (Adam Meyers of counsel), for respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (David A. Harris, J.), dated July 31, 2019. The order granted tenants' motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, tenants' motion to dismiss the petition is denied, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings.

Landlord commenced this owner's use holdover proceeding against tenants to recover one of two remaining occupied apartments in a six-unit building as part of a plan to gain possession of all the apartments in order to create a single-family home for landlord's family.[FN1] During the pendency of this proceeding, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) was enacted, which included changes to the owner's use regulations. Specifically, Section 2 of Part I of the HSTPA modified Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-511 (c) (9) (b) by imposing stricter requirements for a landlord to be able to recover possession for the owner's use by limiting recovery to one apartment and requiring the landlord to demonstrate "immediate and compelling necessity." Tenants moved to dismiss the petition based upon the new, heightened standard. By notice of appeal dated September 3, 2019, landlord appeals from an order dated July 31, 2019 granting tenants' motion. Subsequently, pursuant to an order dated December 19, 2019, an article 7-A administrator (RPAPL art 7-a) was appointed for the management of the building. On appeal, tenants argue that, due to the appointment of the administrator, landlord lacks standing to prosecute this appeal.

For the reasons stated in Fried v Galindo (___ Misc 3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op _____ [*2][appeal No. 2019-1496 K C], decided herewith), the order is reversed, tenants' motion to dismiss the petition is denied, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: May 20, 2022

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Fried v Galindo (___ Misc 3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2019-1496 K C], decided herewith) concerns landlord's holdover proceeding to recover the other apartment.