Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50392(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng (Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng) 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

Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Masaryk Towers Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Xiao Feng and Xiao Yan Yang, Respondents-Appellants.

Respondents-appellants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated November 9, 2017, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated November 9, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that respondents are precluded from relitigating their succession claims in this licensee holdover proceeding, by virtue of the denial of their successor tenancy applications by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) (see City of New York v Montefusco, 29 Misc 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51659[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). HPD is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine remaining occupant claims in city-aided Mitchell-Lama housing, and its issuance of a denial of succession rights and a certificate of eviction cannot be collaterally attacked in a subsequent summary proceeding (see Bedford Gardens Co., LP v Jacobowitz, 29 AD3d 501 [2006]). "If [respondents] felt aggrieved by HPD's determination, their remedy was to challenge that determination in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding - a step they failed to take" (id. at 502-503).

In any event, respondents' contention that petitioner accepted their rent checks for many years is unavailing, as estoppel cannot be invoked against HPD to prevent it from discharging its statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Mitchell-Lama Law (see Matter of Jian Min Lei v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 158 AD3d 514, 515 [2018]; Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008]). The payment of rent by respondents did not legitimatize their occupation of the apartment (see Matter of Jian Min Lei, 158 AD3d at 515).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

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

Masaryk Towers Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Xiao Feng and Xiao Yan Yang, Respondents-Appellants.

Respondents-appellants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated November 9, 2017, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Susan F. Avery, J.), dated November 9, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that respondents are precluded from relitigating their succession claims in this licensee holdover proceeding, by virtue of the denial of their successor tenancy applications by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) (see City of New York v Montefusco, 29 Misc 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51659[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). HPD is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine remaining occupant claims in city-aided Mitchell-Lama housing, and its issuance of a denial of succession rights and a certificate of eviction cannot be collaterally attacked in a subsequent summary proceeding (see Bedford Gardens Co., LP v Jacobowitz, 29 AD3d 501 [2006]). "If [respondents] felt aggrieved by HPD's determination, their remedy was to challenge that determination in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding - a step they failed to take" (id. at 502-503).

In any event, respondents' contention that petitioner accepted their rent checks for many years is unavailing, as estoppel cannot be invoked against HPD to prevent it from discharging its statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Mitchell-Lama Law (see Matter of Jian Min Lei v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 158 AD3d 514, 515 [2018]; Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008]). The payment of rent by respondents did not legitimatize their occupation of the apartment (see Matter of Jian Min Lei, 158 AD3d at 515).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Xiao Feng, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masaryk-towers-corp-v-xiao-feng-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack