Opinion
No. 2023-50194
03-15-2023
Charlene Richardson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. New York City Housing Authority-, Gompers Houses, Respondent-Respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: TISCH, J.P., MICHAEL, JAMES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-tenant, as limited by her briefs, appeals from that portion of (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Frances A. Ortiz, J.), dated May 3, 2022, which granted respondent's cross-motion for access to petitioner's apartment to make repairs and an (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated June 8, 2022, which set forth additional access dates and adjourned the matter for a pre-trial conference in a Housing Part ("HP") enforcement proceeding.
Order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.) dated May 3, 2022, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.) dated June 8, 2022, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.
In light of the Housing Part's expansive jurisdiction over proceedings to enforce proper housing standards (see Prometheus Realty Corp. v City of New York, 80 A.D.3d 206, 210 [2010]; CCA 110), Civil Court properly granted respondent-landlord's cross motion for access to petitioner's apartment to complete urgent and necessary repairs (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2008).
The June 8, 2022 order is "not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice" (Bitton v H.S.B.C., 53 Misc.3d 154 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51746[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; see also CCA 1702[a][2]; CPLR 2211). Were we to nostra sponte grant leave to appeal this order, we would affirm. A court is vested with broad discretion to control its calendar (see 174 Second Equities, Corp. v Hee Nam Bae, 57 A.D.3d 319 [2008]) and we find no abuse of discretion in setting the matter down for a pretrial conference under the circumstances of this proceeding.
We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.