636 Apt. Assoc., JV v Mayo
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 25, 2020
City Court of Mount Vernon
636 Apartment Associates, JV, Petitioner-Landlord,
against
Cathy Mayo, Respondent-Tenant.
2920-19
Mark Guterman, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
199 Main Street, Suite 400
White Plains, New York 10601
Cathy Mayo
Respondent pro se
[redacted] Terrace Avenue, Apt. 1B
Mount Vernon, New York 10552
Lyndon Williams, J.
Petitioner commenced this nonpayment proceeding in November 2019 seeking to recover $8,940.00 in alleged rental arrears for the period from January 2019 to November 2019. The petition alleges that respondent entered into possession of the premises under a written rental agreement where respondent agreed to pay $1,550.00 each month and that pursuant to said agreement there was due to landlord from respondent $8,940.00.
On January 2, 2020, the agreed upon return date of the petition, respondent failed to appear. After having reviewed the petitioner's rent ledger for the alleged rent arrears the Court determined that petitioner was not entitled to parking, late or attorneys fees, all of which had been included in the amount sought in the petition. Accordingly, after deducting said fees from the total amount alleged in the petition, the Court granted petitioner a final judgment of possession in the amount of $1,080.00 with a five (5) day stay. On March 13, 2020 the judgment was entered and the warrant of eviction issued. Thereafter, on March 17, 2020, the NYS Unified Courts stayed all pending matters as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and as such, the warrant of eviction was never executed. The instant matter was stayed until being restored to [*2]the Court's calendar for a conference on September 3, 2020 pursuant to Administrative Order 160A-20.
On September 3, 2020 the parties appeared and respondent was referred to the Legal Services of the Hudson Valley to obtain counsel. The matter was adjourned to September 23, 2020 for a conference. On September 23, 2020, the Court held a conference with petitioner and respondent, who appeared pro se. Petitioner presented a rent ledger for respondent's account dated September 22, 2020 which indicated an overall balance of $14,015.00. The ledger further indicated, however, that a credit to respondent's account of $1,550.00 was applied on May 19, 2020. Petitioner acknowledged that it had applied respondent's security deposit of $1,550.00 toward her outstanding rent arrears. At no time during the pendency of this matter did the petitioner amend its petition to include the additional alleged rent arrears that accrued after the judgment and warrant were issued.
It is petitioner's position that pursuant to RPAPL § 749(3) a tenant must tender or deposit all rent amounts due and outstanding and not just the judgment amount for a warrant of eviction to be vacated.[FN1] As such, petitioner contends that in the instant matter, respondent has an outstanding balance of $14,015.00 and therefore, the warrant of eviction cannot be vacated. None of the cases cited by petitioner support its position that it is entitled to evict respondent because she has additional outstanding rent arrears that accrued after the judgment and warrant were issued even though the judgment has been satisfied prior to the execution of the warrant. Moreover, all of the cases relied on by Petitioner are inapplicable as they were interpreting the old RPAPL § 749(3) which explicitly provided that the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties was terminated upon the issuance of a warrant and only provided for vacatur of the warrant prior to execution upon a showing of good cause. Under the old RPAPL § 749(3) and the case law interpreting the statute, payment of rent arrears alone was not sufficient good cause to support a vacatur.
On the contrary, the new RPAPL § 749(3), enacted under the New York Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("HSTPA"), which applies to the instant matter, no longer terminates the landlord tenant relationship upon issuance of a warrant of eviction. Rather, the new statute affords tenants greater protection from eviction based upon non-payment of rent. Specifically, the provision actually requires that where the full amount of rent owed is paid prior to the execution of the warrant, the warrant must be vacated except where the landlord demonstrates that the tenant withheld the rent in bad faith. Moreover, the statute also specifically states that the "[p]etitioner may recover by action any sum of money which was payable at the time when the special proceeding was commenced and the reasonable value of the use and occupation to the time when the warrant was issued..." RPAPL § 749(3) . The plain language of the statute makes it clear that the rent amounts owed as contemplated by the statute are for the period of time before a warrant of eviction is issued.
In the case at bar, a final judgment of possession for petitioner in the amount of $1,080.00 and a warrant of eviction were issued on March 13, 2020. Respondent's account was credited [*3]$1,550.00 on May 19, 2020 using her security deposit. Petitioner did not present any evidence to support a finding that the respondent had withheld the rent due in bad faith. Any alleged additional rent arrears that accrued after the judgment and warrant were issued were never properly brought before the Court as petitioner did not seek to amend the instant petition nor did petitioner commence a new action seeking to recover said arrears. As such, since a credit to respondent's account in excess of the $1,080.00 judgment amount, that being the full rent amount due prior to the issuance of the warrant, was applied to respondent's account prior to the execution of the warrant, the warrant must be vacated. See RPAPL § 749(3).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the judgment has been satisfied, the warrant of eviction is vacated and the petition is dismissed with prejudice.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: September 25, 2020
Mount Vernon, New York
HON. LYNDON WILLIAMS
City Judge of Mount Vernon Footnotes
Footnote 1:The Court granted petitioner leave to file a memorandum in support of its position. The petitioner's memorandum in support was considered by the Court in making its determination herein.
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.
