Opinion
No. 2011–2955 K C.
2013-02-25
287 REALTY CORP., Appellant, Konstantinos Livathinos, “John Doe” and “Jane Doe”, Occupants, v. Spyridon LIVATHINOS and S & L Industrial Services, Inc. Doing Business as S & L Industrial Iron Work, Respondents.
Present: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered February 2, 2010. The order granted a motion by occupants Spyridon Livathinos and S & L Industrial Services, Inc. Doing Business as S & L Industrial Iron Work to consolidate this summary proceeding with another and to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted the branch of the motion by occupants Spyridon Livathinos and S & L Industrial Services, Inc. Doing Business as S & L Industrial Iron Work seeking to consolidate this summary proceeding with another is dismissed as moot; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this summary proceeding, the petition merely alleges, in conclusory terms, that Spyridon Livathinos and S & L Industrial Services, Inc. Doing Business as S & L Industrial Iron Work (occupants) are squatters in a premises described as “all rooms, 2400 square feet on south side-ground floor space in the building known as 293 Bond Street, Brooklyn,” without providing any information as to how occupants—one of whom was purportedly a party to a partnership agreement which gave him a 50% share in petitioner—came into possession and why they are to be deemed “squatters.” For the reasons stated in this court's decision in 287 Realty Corp. v. Livathinos (Misc.3d, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op [Appeal No.2011–2954 K C], decided herewith), it is our view that the petition is defective ( seeRPAPL 741[4] ) and that the branch of occupants' motion seeking to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them should have been granted on that basis.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, the issue of the propriety of consolidating the summary proceedings is moot. Consequently, the appeal from so much of the order as consolidated the summary proceedings is dismissed.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.