Opinion
570422/18
03-22-2019
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent, v. XIAO FENG and Xiao Yan Yang, Respondents-Appellants.
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.