Fifth & 106th St. Assoc., LP v. Hunt
This text of Fifth & 106th St. Assoc., LP v. Hunt (Fifth & 106th St. Assoc., LP v. Hunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Fifth & 106th St. Assoc., LP v Hunt
2026 NY Slip Op 04144
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Fifth and 106th Street Associates, LP, Appellant,
v
Martha Hunt, Respondent.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 652614/22|Appeal No. 7004|Case No. 2025-00989|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., González, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.
Rose & Rose Law, New York (Paul Coppe of counsel), for appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered December 11, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff landlord's motion for summary judgment on its claim for additional use and occupancy, and, upon a search of the record, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant was a tenant in a section 8 building owned by defendant, and the lease for plaintiff's unit provided that failure to certify her income could result in termination of the tenancy. When defendant refused to certify her income, plaintiff commenced a holdover proceeding, and Housing Court granted a judgment of possession in plaintiff's favor based in part on defendant's failure to provide the recertification documents. Defendant obtained a stay pending appeal, conditioned on paying interim use and occupancy. While that appeal was pending, defendant paid use and occupancy at a rate of $1,255 per month, an amount that exceeded her lease rate of $1,091 per month. After defendant was evicted from her unit, plaintiff commenced this action, seeking the difference between the market rate rent set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the use and occupancy paid by defendant while she remained in possession.
Initially, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not dismiss the complaint sua sponte, but providently searched the record in accordance with CPLR 3212(b) to find that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief it sought in the complaint (see e.g. High Return Props. v Calka, 256 AD2d 82, 82 [1st Dept 1998]). On the merits, the court properly dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff failed to show that it complied with the HUD procedures referenced in paragraph 32(a) of the subject lease, or otherwise met its burden of showing that it is entitled to collect the higher, HUD determined market rent (see Mushlam, Inc. v Nazor, 80 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2011]). The motion court therefore properly determined that the tenant's payment of use and occupancy in excess of the lease rate was reasonable compensation for the holdover period, and its search of the record to dismiss plaintiff's sole claim in the action was proper.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Fifth & 106th St. Assoc., LP v. Hunt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fifth-106th-st-assoc-lp-v-hunt-nyappdiv-2026.