Opinion
570574/10.
Decided November 17, 2010.
Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gary F. Marton, J.), dated November 25, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the petition and to strike tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim for attorneys' fees, and granted tenant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Gary F. Marton, J.), dated November 25, 2008, reversed, with $10 costs, landlord's motion for summary judgment granted, tenant's cross motion for summary judgment denied, judgment directed in landlord's favor on its petition and tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim are stricken. Execution of any warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
This nonprimary residence proceeding was dismissed on the ground that petitioner-landlord had failed to make a "genuine effort" to ascertain the individual occupant's name prior to the commencement of the underlying holdover summary proceeding. However, on this record, the individual occupant was not a "necessary party" whose presence was indispensable to providing complete relief as between landlord and the corporate tenant ( see Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth. v Wimpfheimer, 165 Misc 2d 584). Notably, both the initial rent stabilized lease and renewal leases were issued solely in the name of the corporate tenant, respondent Unique People Services Inc., and failed to identify any individual as an intended occupant. Moreover, landlord's filings with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal also consistently identified Unique People Services Inc. as the record tenant.
With respect to the merits of landlord's summary judgment motion, no triable issue exists regarding whether an individual occupant was identified for the apartment and the leasehold therefore violated the rule prohibiting the creation of perpetual tenancies ( see Manocherian v Lenox Hill Hosp., 229 AD2d 197, lv denied 90 NY2d 835; see also Avon Bard Co. v Aquarian Found., 260 AD2d 207, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998; 562 Assocs., LP v Unique People Servs. Inc. , 25 Misc 3d 131 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52140[U]). Accordingly, landlord's motion should have been granted and tenant's cross motion should have been denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.