Schweizer v. Anderson-Gomez
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 50166(U) (Schweizer v. Anderson-Gomez) 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.
Opinion
| Schweizer v Anderson-Gomez |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50166(U) |
| Decided on February 18, 2026 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 2026
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ.
571461/25
against
Kay Anderson-Gomez a/k/a Bianka Gomez, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, and "John Doe," "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.
Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Alberto M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2024, after inquest, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Per Curiam.
Order (Alberto M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2024, reversed, without costs, petition reinstated, and matter remanded for a new inquest.
The inquest court should not have dismissed the holdover petition. Having defaulted, respondents are deemed to have admitted all traversable allegations in the petition (AFF-WHGA MN-11E, LP v Wiggins, 87 Misc 3d 129 [A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51593[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2025]). The dismissal order, premised upon grounds not raised at the inquest, such as discrepancies in the name of the nonappearing tenant in various documents, deprived landlord of notice and an opportunity to be heard (see Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 519 [2009]). Since landlord was not offered an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, we remand for a new inquest. We also take judicial notice of undertenants deposition testimony (NYSCEF Doc. No. 30; see Juman v Cape Church Assoc., LLC, 234 AD3d 551, 552 [2025]), explaining that tenant was known as both Bianca Gomez and Kay Gomez.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 18, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 NY Slip Op 50166(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schweizer-v-anderson-gomez-nyappterm-2026.