New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v. Santiago

85 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50201(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 2025
Docket570790/24
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 Misc. 3d 131(A) (New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v. Santiago) 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
New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v. Santiago, 85 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50201(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v Santiago (2025 NY Slip Op 50201(U))

[*1]

New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v Santiago
2025 NY Slip Op 50201(U) [85 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on February 18, 2025
Appellate Term, First Department
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 18, 2025

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT


PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., James, Perez, JJ.


570790/24



New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Phillip Santiago, Respondent-Tenant, and "J. Doe," Respondent-Appellant.


Respondent Cooleridge Bell Bey, sued herein as "J. Doe," appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tracy Ferdinand, J.), dated June 12, 2024, which denied his post-eviction motion to vacate a default final judgment and restore him to possession in holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Tracy Ferdinand, J.), dated June 12, 2024, affirmed, without costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of respondent Cooleridge Bell Bey's application to vacate the default final judgment and warrant of eviction entered against him in this licensee holdover proceeding, and to restore him to possession. Respondent offered no convincing excuse for his repeated defaults in appearance over the course of four years despite multiple notices sent by petitioner and the court. Nor did respondent set forth a meritorious defense to the proceeding by, among other things, demonstrating any right to continued occupancy following the April 2019 death of the tenant of record (see e.g., Starrett City, Inc. v Smith, 25 Misc 3d 42, 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2009]). On this record, good cause for vacating the warrant of eviction is absent (see RPAPL § 749 [3]; see also City of New York v 130/40 Essex St. Dev. Corp., 302 AD2d 292 [2003]; New York Hous. Auth. v Torres, 61 AD2d 681 [1978]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 18, 2025

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

Related

332-4 W. 47th St. Assoc., L.P. v. Buxo
2025 NY Slip Op 51590(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50201(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-savoy-park-portfolio-llc-v-santiago-nyappterm-2025.