235 W. 107th St., LLC v Martinez 2025 NY Slip Op 32322(U) July 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 150984/2023 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC,235 WEST 107TH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND MOTION DATE 06/25/2025 CORPORATION, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 Plaintiffs,
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON ANGELIC MARTINEZ, MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims is granted.
Background
Plaintiffs commenced this action in order to temporarily relocate defendant while they
renovated their building in which defendant lives as part of an effort to convert it to affordable
and supportive housing. Initially, only about 8 tenants remained in the building and defendant
was the only holdout. This Court previously ordered defendant to temporarily relocate to two
renovated units in September 2024 to allow the renovation to move forward (NYSCEF Doc. No.
189). The Court observed that a provision of the Rent Stabilization Code permitted an owner to
seek the temporary relocation of a tenant under certain circumstances, all of which were present
in this action (id.).
Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims for
harassment and declaratory relief that plaintiffs have no right to relocate her. They observe that
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 005
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
the first counterclaim is moot as this Court previously ordered defendant to temporarily relocate.
Plaintiffs emphasize that defendant moved to two temporary units that were about double the
size of her prior unit. They insist that any claims about a possible reduction in building services
is speculative and that defendant has her remedies before DHCR should such a situation arise.
Similarly, plaintiffs insist that the second counterclaim is also moot in light of the Court’s
previous decision.
In opposition, defendant argues that plaintiffs have unclean hands which support her
harassment claim. She insists that plaintiffs entered into a regulatory agreement with HPD
without first obtaining several governmental approvals required prior to the execution of such an
agreement. Defendant emphasizes that there has been a sustained reduction in services that
stretches well beyond the commencement of this action. She observes that she made many
requests for housekeeping services, buyout offers from plaintiffs and misleading claims made to
DHCR.
Defendant disputes the fact that the units provided for her temporary relocation are
double the size of her prior unit. She contends that her unit was 221 square feet while the two
units, combined, total 267 square feet. Defendant claims that she “did not have an issue with
relocation on its face” and that she “was simply trying to get the plaintiffs to address the
reduction and elimination of tenant services that would arise from the reconfiguration of the
Building” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 209 at 3).
In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendant did not point to any evidence showing that
plaintiffs’ request that she temporarily relocate constitutes harassment. They emphasize that
defendant did, in fact, temporarily relocate, which moots these counterclaims.
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 005
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Discussion
“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a
denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. Once this showing has
been made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment
to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material
issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324,
508 NYS2d 923 [1986]).
The Administrative Code defines harassment, in part, as “any act or omission by or on
behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to
occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in
relation to such occupancy” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2004[48]). Section ii
contains a long list of examples.
In her answer, defendant insists that plaintiffs engaged in harassment in five ways
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 48 at 4). The Court will address each contention. First, defendant claims that
plaintiffs tried to relocate her to a unit with less usable living space. This claim is without merit
as defendant admitted in her opposition that the total space of the two units (for her temporary
location) was larger than her original unit. Second, defendant argues that plaintiffs provided false
information of the status of the building to the DOB in order to obtain a work permit. Even if
this were true, defendant did not sufficiently explain how this constitutes tenant harassment. At
no point during this litigation did plaintiffs try to use the work permit to terminate defendant’s
tenancy. Instead, plaintiffs simply wanted defendant to temporarily relocate so they could
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 005
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
building supportive housing units. In any event, defendant did not adequately substantiate her
claims that plaintiffs provided false information to DOB to get a work permit.
Third, defendant claims that she was provided with misleading information about the
future of her rent stabilized status. Defendant failed to support this claim or point to any
evidence that plaintiffs attempted to get her to relinquish her rent-stabilized tenancy. Fourth,
defendant complains that plaintiff made many unsolicited demands that plaintiff relocate. As
this Court observed in connection with the last motion, the Rent Stabilization Code specifically
permits an owner to seek the relocation of a tenant in certain situations.
And, finally, defendant argues that there has been a reduction in essential services.
Unfortunately, defendant did not point to any evidence showing a reduction in services in her
opposition. For instance, although she mentions a reduction in housekeeping services, she did
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
235 W. 107th St., LLC v Martinez 2025 NY Slip Op 32322(U) July 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 150984/2023 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC,235 WEST 107TH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND MOTION DATE 06/25/2025 CORPORATION, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 Plaintiffs,
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON ANGELIC MARTINEZ, MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims is granted.
Background
Plaintiffs commenced this action in order to temporarily relocate defendant while they
renovated their building in which defendant lives as part of an effort to convert it to affordable
and supportive housing. Initially, only about 8 tenants remained in the building and defendant
was the only holdout. This Court previously ordered defendant to temporarily relocate to two
renovated units in September 2024 to allow the renovation to move forward (NYSCEF Doc. No.
189). The Court observed that a provision of the Rent Stabilization Code permitted an owner to
seek the temporary relocation of a tenant under certain circumstances, all of which were present
in this action (id.).
Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims for
harassment and declaratory relief that plaintiffs have no right to relocate her. They observe that
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 005
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
the first counterclaim is moot as this Court previously ordered defendant to temporarily relocate.
Plaintiffs emphasize that defendant moved to two temporary units that were about double the
size of her prior unit. They insist that any claims about a possible reduction in building services
is speculative and that defendant has her remedies before DHCR should such a situation arise.
Similarly, plaintiffs insist that the second counterclaim is also moot in light of the Court’s
previous decision.
In opposition, defendant argues that plaintiffs have unclean hands which support her
harassment claim. She insists that plaintiffs entered into a regulatory agreement with HPD
without first obtaining several governmental approvals required prior to the execution of such an
agreement. Defendant emphasizes that there has been a sustained reduction in services that
stretches well beyond the commencement of this action. She observes that she made many
requests for housekeeping services, buyout offers from plaintiffs and misleading claims made to
DHCR.
Defendant disputes the fact that the units provided for her temporary relocation are
double the size of her prior unit. She contends that her unit was 221 square feet while the two
units, combined, total 267 square feet. Defendant claims that she “did not have an issue with
relocation on its face” and that she “was simply trying to get the plaintiffs to address the
reduction and elimination of tenant services that would arise from the reconfiguration of the
Building” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 209 at 3).
In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendant did not point to any evidence showing that
plaintiffs’ request that she temporarily relocate constitutes harassment. They emphasize that
defendant did, in fact, temporarily relocate, which moots these counterclaims.
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 005
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
Discussion
“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a
denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. Once this showing has
been made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment
to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material
issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324,
508 NYS2d 923 [1986]).
The Administrative Code defines harassment, in part, as “any act or omission by or on
behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to
occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in
relation to such occupancy” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2004[48]). Section ii
contains a long list of examples.
In her answer, defendant insists that plaintiffs engaged in harassment in five ways
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 48 at 4). The Court will address each contention. First, defendant claims that
plaintiffs tried to relocate her to a unit with less usable living space. This claim is without merit
as defendant admitted in her opposition that the total space of the two units (for her temporary
location) was larger than her original unit. Second, defendant argues that plaintiffs provided false
information of the status of the building to the DOB in order to obtain a work permit. Even if
this were true, defendant did not sufficiently explain how this constitutes tenant harassment. At
no point during this litigation did plaintiffs try to use the work permit to terminate defendant’s
tenancy. Instead, plaintiffs simply wanted defendant to temporarily relocate so they could
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 005
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
building supportive housing units. In any event, defendant did not adequately substantiate her
claims that plaintiffs provided false information to DOB to get a work permit.
Third, defendant claims that she was provided with misleading information about the
future of her rent stabilized status. Defendant failed to support this claim or point to any
evidence that plaintiffs attempted to get her to relinquish her rent-stabilized tenancy. Fourth,
defendant complains that plaintiff made many unsolicited demands that plaintiff relocate. As
this Court observed in connection with the last motion, the Rent Stabilization Code specifically
permits an owner to seek the relocation of a tenant in certain situations.
And, finally, defendant argues that there has been a reduction in essential services.
Unfortunately, defendant did not point to any evidence showing a reduction in services in her
opposition. For instance, although she mentions a reduction in housekeeping services, she did
not expound upon what that means or how that reduction constitutes harassment. It is axiomatic
that not every reduction in services justifies a claim for tenant harassment.
Summary
The Court recognizes that defendant is deeply unhappy with the fact that she was forced
to temporarily relocate while plaintiffs renovated a building in order to construct dozens of
supportive housing units. However, that unhappiness is not a basis for a finding that plaintiffs
engaged in tenant harassment as, after all, plaintiffs’ goal was to build and renovate supportive
housing not to get defendant to relinquish her rent-stabilized tenancy. On this record, there is no
indication that plaintiffs made any attempt to improperly kick defendant out of the building.
Defendant’s counterclaims, both of which are based on tenant harassment, are without
merit. To the extent they were based on the temporary relocation issue, her arguments are moot
as she has temporarily moved out to larger quarters. And, to the extent they are about other
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 005
4 of 5 [* 4] INDEX NO. 150984/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2025
issues, defendant did not raise a material issue of fact in opposition. A claim based on tenant
harassment requires a showing that the owner is, essentially, trying to get the tenant to
permanently vacate the unit or waive her rights in relation to the unit. This Court concludes that
plaintiffs did not do that as a matter of law.
The Court observes that defendant’s arguments about a reduction in services is, at this
stage, hypothetical and therefore not a basis to continue this matter. If, after the renovation is
completed and defendant claims that there has been a reduction in services, she may pursue those
claims before the applicable regulatory agency (DHCR). Her counterclaims in this action relate
to harassment and not solely to a reduction in services; premature claims of a reduction in
services are not a basis to deny plaintiffs’ motion.
As this Court believes that all claims for relief have now been resolved, the Court will
mark this case as disposed.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s
counterclaims is granted and these counterclaims are severed and dismissed.
7/1/2025 $SIG$ DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs. MARTINEZ, ANGELIC Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 005
5 of 5 [* 5]