Mangan Realty, LLC v Anthony
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 19, 2019
Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
Mangan Realty, LLC, Petitioner
against
Wendy Dolly Anthony, Respondent-Tenant, "JOHN DOE" & "JANE DOE" Respondents-Undertenants.
68707/18
For Respondent
Mobilization for Justice, Inc.
Attorneys for Respondent
Attn: Andrew Jones, Esq.
424 East 147th Street, 3rd Floor
Bronx, NY 10455
For Petitioner
Todd Rothenberg, Esq.
271 North Avenue, Suite 115
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Shorab Ibrahim, J.
Recitation, as required by C.P.L.R. § 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of this motion.
PapersNumbered
Notice of Motion to Dismiss 1
Answering Affirmation 2
Reply Affirmation in Support 3
After oral argument held on June 17, 2019, and upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision and order on this motion is as follows:
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mangan Realty, LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, ("Petitioner"), commenced this summary holdover proceeding against Wendy Dolly Anthony, the respondent herein, ("Respondent"), seeking possession of the subject premises based on the allegations that "Respondent, his [sic] guests and/or occupants have engaged in conduct constituting nuisance "
The December 6, 2018 Ten Day Notice to Terminate, ("Notice"), states in relevant part,"Since on or about January 24, 2018, you, your guests and/or occupants have engaged in conduct that has infringed upon the rights and safety of your fellow building residents and have degraded their quality of life and their ability to use their respective housing accommodations. Your conduct is in breach of Section 2524.3(b) of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments and in violation of a substantial obligation of your lease agreement , specifically paragraph 17 and 27(g) of said lease."
The Notice lists eleven (11) separate instances of objectionable conduct.
Respondent, represented by counsel, interposed a written answer dated March 11, 2019. Respondent now moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), citing RPAPL § 744, RPL § 227-d, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c), (9)(B) and (C)(i).
DISCUSSION
Respondent argues that the matter must be dismissed because the proceeding "discriminates against Respondent on the basis of her status as a domestic violence survivor." In support of her motion, Respondent submits an affidavit and two (2) temporary orders of protection, both expiring Aprils 16, 2019. Respondent's March 25, 2019 affidavit alleges a romantic relationship with a Moussa Soumare, ("Soumare"), beginning in June 2017; that he moved into the premises in September 2017; that Soumare was emotionally abusive; that Soumare would repeatedly yell and get in fights with other tenants; that Soumare moved out of the apartment in January 2019; that he returned in February 2019 and punched a hole in the wall and that he returned to the apartment again on March 5, 2019.
RPAPL § 744(1) provides that "[a] tenant shall not be removed from possession of a residential unit pursuant to this article because of such person's domestic violence victim status, as defined in section two hundred twenty-seven-d of the real property law. It shall be a defense to a proceeding to recover possession of a residential unit that a landlord seeks such recovery because of a person's domestic violence victim status, and that, but for such status, the landlord would not seek to recover possession. A landlord may rebut such defense by showing that he or she seeks to recover possession of a residential unit because of any other lawful ground." RPL § 227-d provides, "a person is a "domestic violence victim" and possesses "domestic violence victim status" if such person is or has been, or is a parent accompanied by a minor child or children who is or has been, in a situation in which such person or child is a victim of an act that would constitute a violent felony offense as enumerated in section 70.02 of the penal law, or a family offense as enumerated in subdivision one of section eight hundred twelve of the family court act, and such act is alleged to have been committed by a member of the same family or household, as defined in subdivision one of section eight hundred twelve of the family court [*2]act."
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction. The court must deem the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88, 614 NYS2d 972 [1994]). In assessing a motion under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one." (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275, 401 NYS2d 182 [1977]). Thus, "a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (7) will fail if, taking all facts alleged as true and according them every possible inference favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law." (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38, 827 NYS2d 231 [2nd Dept 2006]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88).
Under the limited record before this court, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Neither Respondent's affidavit or the issuance of the two temporary orders of protections, as far as this court can surmise,[FN1] establish, as a matter of law, Respondent as a "domestic violence victim" as defined by RPL § 227-d. At best, issues of fact are implicated. Respondent may, at trial, offer proof that she is a domestic violence victim. Assuming arguendo that Respondent has established she is a domestic violence victim, she has failed to establish that "but for such status, the landlord would not seek to recover possession." The Notice herein alleges eleven (11) separate items, including multiple instances of threats, and physical violence, directed at other tenants. It may be that the otherwise lawful reasons for the eviction as described in the Notice will be proven as having been created by the alleged abuser. If so, Respondent's defense under RPAPL § 744 may prove successful. However, this court will not foreclose Petitioner from proceeding on this matter, commenced to protect the health and safety of other tenants, on the sparse record before it.
Respondent primarily relies on KDG Albany, LP v Dixon, (62 Misc 3d 557, 89 NYS3d 835 [City Ct, Albany 2018]), in support of the motion. The court notes that in Dixon there was a fully developed record after trial. The Dixon court determined, after trial, that the tenant and the alleged abuser had an intimate relationship, that she qualified as a domestic abuse victim and that the complained of behavior were all sourced in domestic abuse. (Dixon, 62 Misc 3d at 562-564). Other than Respondent's affidavit, no independent proof is offered establishing Soumare and Respondent's intimate relationship. There is no independent proof that Soumare and Respondent were members of the same family or household [as defined by § 812 of the Family Court Act]. The affidavit is entirely conclusory regarding alleged threats and emotional abuse toward Respondent. Respondent does not allege physical violence [that would constitute a violent felony]. (See RPL 227-d and NY Penal Law § 70.02). Respondent also has failed to establish that a "family offense" under Section 812 of the Family Court Act has been [*3]committed.[FN2] The court has considered Respondent's other arguments under 42 U.S.C. § 1437, (see Metro N. Owners, LLC v Thorpe, 23 Misc 3d 178, 870 NYS2d 768 [Civ Ct, New York County 2008]); they are not persuasive for the reasons already stated.
This court urges Petitioner herein, its counsel, and future practitioners to avoid casting aspersions and using dismissive language toward domestic abuse survivors based on perceived inconsistencies in his or her actions or statements. This court fully concurs with Hon. Gerald Lebovitz' statement in Thorpe, "[u]nrepresentative and inconsistent victim behavior toward an alleged aggressor fits into the cycle of domestic violence. Domestic violence is cyclical in nature. The battered woman's inconsistent behavior allows the victim to anticipate oncoming violence and entices her to remain with her abuser after the violence ends." (23 Misc 3d at 185 [internal citations omitted]).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding is denied without prejudice to interposing her defenses at trial. The matter is adjourned to July 24, 2019, 9:30 a.m., Part F, Room 320, for settlement or trial. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
SO ORDERED,
Dated: June 19, 2019
Bronx, NY
______________________
SHORAB IBRAHIM, JHC Footnotes
Footnote 1:The temporary orders of protection are submitted are not certified. (see Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78, 898 NYS2d 569 [2nd Dept 2010). There is no allegation or proof offered that Soumare was convicted of any crime.
Footnote 2:Compare Respondent's affidavit to the one referred to in Metro N. Owners, LLC v Thorpe, supra.
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.
