Summary
In Dino Realty Corp. v Khan, (46 Misc.3d 71, 73 [App Term, 2nd Dept. 2014]), the court went as far as vacating the warrant where there was unexplained refusal by the landlord to provide a W-9.
Summary of this case from Patbru Realty Co. v. BryantOpinion
12-11-2014
DINO REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Michelle KHAN, Respondent.
Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, New Rochelle (Heath Gurinsky of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, New Rochelle (Heath Gurinsky of counsel), for appellant.
PRESENT: ALIOTTA, J.P., PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Michael J. Pinckney, J.), entered May 7, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of tenant's motion seeking to vacate the warrant for good cause shown in a nonpayment summary proceeding. ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this nonpayment proceeding, the parties, on March 1, 2013, entered into a stipulation of settlement which provided, among other things, that landlord would have a final judgment awarding it possession and the sum of $4,904.26; that $660 thereof was paid that day; that the warrant would issue forthwith; and that execution of the warrant would be stayed to April 15, 2013 for payment of the balance plus April 2013 rent. In support of a motion seeking, among other things, to vacate the warrant for good cause shown, tenant showed that she had made diligent efforts to obtain assistance to pay the arrears; that she had a portion of the arrears; and that the remainder of $3,410.58 would be paid by Catholic Charities upon landlord's provision of a W–9 form, but that landlord had refused to submit a W–9 form. Landlord opposed the motion, arguing that nothing in the stipulation required it to provide a W–9 form. The Civil Court granted the branch of tenant's motion seeking to vacate the warrant for good cause shown, finding that landlord had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and had frustrated tenant's efforts to timely comply with the stipulation.
We affirm, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
The law abhors the forfeiture of leases (see e.g. Lake Anne Realty Corp. v. Sibley, 154 A.D.2d 349, 351, 545 N.Y.S.2d 828 [1989] ), and it is the policy of this State to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants (see e.g. 2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco, 52 A.D.3d 377, 378, 860 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2008] ; Sharp v. Norwood, 223 A.D.2d 6, 11, 643 N.Y.S.2d 39 [1996], affd. 89 N.Y.2d 1068, 659 N.Y.S.2d 834, 681 N.E.2d 1280 [1997] ). Moreover, it is the policy of New York City to prevent unlawful discrimination against prospective and existing tenants (see Tapia v. Successful Mgt. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 422, 915 N.Y.S.2d 19 [2010] ) based on any lawful source of income (see Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8–101, 8–107[5][a] [1] ). In the instant case, as the funds necessary to satisfy the judgment were available, from a lawful source of income, and as landlord, without proffering a reason for its refusal, refused to provide a W–9 form so that the funds could be released, good cause has been shown to vacate the nonpayment warrant (see Monastery Manor v. Donati, 28 Misc.3d 133[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51335[U], 2010 WL 2990128 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2010] ; 2720 LLC v. White, 35 Misc.3d 1236[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51023[U], 2012 WL 2086845 [Civ.Ct., Bronx County 2012] ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed. We note, however, that, where appropriate, the Civil Court should fashion relief by conditionally vacating the warrant so as to give the landlord a further opportunity to provide the necessary form.