Parkchester Preserv. Co., LP v Housen

[*1] Parkchester Preserv. Co., LP v Housen 2022 NY Slip Op 50854(U) Decided on September 2, 2022 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County Powell, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 2, 2022
Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Parkchester Preservation Co., LP, Plaintiff,

against

Durey Housen and Sharme Cagle, Defendants.



Index No. CV-013949-20/BX


For Plaintiff: Robert E. Judge, PC (by Robert E. Judge, Esq.)

Defendant Housen proceeded pro se. Defendant Cagle did not appear.
Verena C. Powell, J.

INTRODUCTION

Parkchester Preservation Company, LP ("Parkchester" or "Plaintiff") commenced this non-payment action on November 17, 2020, seeking $19,608.93 from Defendants Durey Housen ("Housen") and Sharme Cagle ("Cagle") for arrears in use and occupancy, from August 2018 to August 2019.

On or about December 17, 2020, the Defendants filed an answer. The answer asserted defenses of not owing the debt, claim that the debt had been discharged, that the matter was a tax matter and the debt canceled, and that the Defendants' income was exempt from collection. The answer included a counterclaim for $500,000,000 per use of the "assume name fee schedule."

Following several conferences and adjournments, this action proceeded to a bench trial. Parkchester's management agent testified at the trial, as did Defendant Housen. Both witnesses submitted documentary evidence for the Court's consideration. After the trial, the Court reserved decision.

FINDING OF FACTS

The credible and relevant evidence at the trial showed the following:

Hedy L. Bucala ("Bucala"), the managing agent for Parkchester Preservation, testified that Plaintiff and the Defendants entered a lease agreement on November 1, 2015, for a two (2) year term commencing on November 1, 2015, and terminating on November 30, 2017. The agreed monthly rent for 24 Metropolitan Oval, Unit 6B, Bronx, New York 10462 was 41,665.00. Ms. Bucala introduced the multi-paged lease with riders, signed by Defendants and Carlos Ortiz, Parkchester's Director of Leasing and Marketing, into the record.

After their lease expired, the Defendants remained in possession of the apartment without signing a lease renewal. Ms. Bucala testified that Parkchester sent a letter to the Defendants [*2]concerning a lease renewal, but the Defendants never signed a new lease. She said that the Defendants stayed in the apartment and paid use and occupancy until August 2018. Thereafter, the Defendants failed to pay for the use and occupancy of the apartment. The Plaintiff seeking possession of the apartment filed a matter in Bronx Housing Court. Judge Ibrahim Shorab issued a judgment of possession in favor of Parkchester on March 1, 2019 and issued warrants of eviction against the Defendants. On or about July 17, 2019, a New York City Marshall took possession of the premises pursuant to the eviction order. Ms. Bucala testified that at the time of the eviction, $19,608.93 of arrears remained.

Plaintiff admitted the following exhibits:[FN1]

Plaintiff's Exhibit A: Residential Lease Agreement with Riders.Plaintiff's Exhibit B: Tenant History Statement detailing the amount of rent and other charges still owed as $19,608.93.Plaintiff's Exhibit ">https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/fraud/fraud_bogussightdraft.htm (last accessed Sept. 2, 2022). Beyond California, the Court's LexisNexis search revealed state and federal cases from six other states (Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas), all of which rejected the use of bonded bills of exchange in the same or similar manner urged here. Nothing in the record dissuades the Court from deviating from the decisions of McElroy and its sister courts' holdings in this action.