BH 2628, LLC v. Zully's Bubbles Laundromat, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

BH 2628, LLC v. Zully's Bubbles Laundromat, Inc.

57 Misc. 3d 63, 61 N.Y.S.3d 809

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 29, 2017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 Misc. 3d 63 (BH 2628, LLC v. Zully's Bubbles Laundromat, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BH 2628, LLC v. Zully's Bubbles Laundromat, Inc., 57 Misc. 3d 63, 61 N.Y.S.3d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment awarding possession to petitioner.

In this summary proceeding commenced pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5) by a purchaser in foreclosure, petitioner appeals from a final judgment which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition. The Civil Court found that landlord had failed to prove its case, as occupant had a valid lease and had not been named in the foreclosure action. The court held, accordingly, that occupant was not bound by the judgment of foreclosure.

As the lease with the former owner upon which occupant’s defense to this proceeding is based was signed several months after a notice of pendency had been filed in connection with the foreclosure action, occupant was, contrary to the Civil Court’s holding, bound by the judgment of foreclosure (see CPLR 6501) and the lease was voidable by petitioner following its purchase in foreclosure (see id.; West 56th & 57th St. Corp. v Pearl, 242 AD2d 508 [1997]). Petitioner demonstrated that it had served a notice voiding the lease (see Matter of Fresh Meadows Jewish Ctr. [Gordon], 75 AD2d 814, 815 [1980]).

RPAPL 713 (5) allows for a special proceeding to be maintained after service of a 10-day notice to quit where “the property has been sold in foreclosure and either the deed delivered [65]*65pursuant to such sale, or a copy of such deed, certified as provided in the civil practice law and rules, has been exhibited to” the respondent. Since, here, the lease was voided, not terminated, no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between the parties. Thus, a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5), not a holdover proceeding (RPAPL 711 [1]), was the appropriate proceeding for petitioner, a purchaser in foreclosure, to commence against occupant. As petitioner demonstrated that it had voided the lease; that it had exhibited the referee’s deed to occupant’s principal; that it had served a 10-day notice to quit; and that occupant had remained in possession of the subject property after the expiration of the 10-day period, petitioner is entitled to a final judgment of possession.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment awarding possession to petitioner.

Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment awarding possession to petitioner.

In this summary proceeding commenced pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5) by a purchaser in foreclosure, petitioner appeals from a final judgment which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition. The Civil Court found that landlord had failed to prove its case, as occupant had a valid lease and had not been named in the foreclosure action. The court held, accordingly, that occupant was not bound by the judgment of foreclosure.

As the lease with the former owner upon which occupant’s defense to this proceeding is based was signed several months after a notice of pendency had been filed in connection with the foreclosure action, occupant was, contrary to the Civil Court’s holding, bound by the judgment of foreclosure (see CPLR 6501) and the lease was voidable by petitioner following its purchase in foreclosure (see id.; West 56th & 57th St. Corp. v Pearl, 242 AD2d 508 [1997]). Petitioner demonstrated that it had served a notice voiding the lease (see Matter of Fresh Meadows Jewish Ctr. [Gordon], 75 AD2d 814, 815 [1980]).

RPAPL 713 (5) allows for a special proceeding to be maintained after service of a 10-day notice to quit where “the property has been sold in foreclosure and either the deed delivered [65]*65pursuant to such sale, or a copy of such deed, certified as provided in the civil practice law and rules, has been exhibited to” the respondent. Since, here, the lease was voided, not terminated, no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between the parties. Thus, a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5), not a holdover proceeding (RPAPL 711 [1]), was the appropriate proceeding for petitioner, a purchaser in foreclosure, to commence against occupant. As petitioner demonstrated that it had voided the lease; that it had exhibited the referee’s deed to occupant’s principal; that it had served a 10-day notice to quit; and that occupant had remained in possession of the subject property after the expiration of the 10-day period, petitioner is entitled to a final judgment of possession.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment awarding possession to petitioner.

Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Misc. 3d 63, 61 N.Y.S.3d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bh-2628-llc-v-zullys-bubbles-laundromat-inc-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack