From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Scott

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51380 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Opinion

2002-1420 K C.

Decided October 2, 2003.

Appeal by tenant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (T. Fitzpatrick, J.), dated September 25, 2002, denying her motion to, in effect, reargue her prior motion seeking to vacate a default final judgment in a summary nonpayment proceeding.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA JJ.


The court below properly deemed tenant's application, purportedly for an order vacating a default final judgment entered June 24, 2002, which awarded landlord possession and the sum of $6,600, as for leave to reargue an order (A. Alterman, J.), dated July 10, 2002, which granted vacatur on condition that tenant pay into court the sum of $7,700, the accumulated unpaid rent, and, upon reargument, for an order deleting said condition. Judge Fitzpatrick denied the application without consideration of the condition's propriety ( cf. Testwell Craig Labs. v. Charles Assocs., 264 AD2d 836, 837; Congress Talcott Corp. v. Pacemakers Trading Corp., 161 AD2d 554, 554-555). An order denying a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable as of right ( Halle v. Fernandez, 286 AD2d 664; Capital Resources Corp. v. Auguste, 283 AD2d 453).

Even were we to deem the September 25, 2002 order to have granted reargument and, upon reargument, to adhere to the July 10, 2002 order, we would affirm. Tenant "failed to submit any evidence of [her] inability to post the required [amount]" ( Testwell Craig Labs. v. Charles Assocs., 264 AD2d at 837; see also Curry v. Roman, 217 AD2d 314, 320), representing rent she contracted to pay at the outset of her tenancy. In light of tenant's multiple defaults and the tenuous nature of her purported meritorious defense ( cf. Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 516 [h]; Dara Realty Assoc. v. Schachter, 194 Misc 2d 29, 30 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]), we cannot conclude that the condition represented an abuse of discretion.


Summaries of

Jones v. Scott

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51380 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)
Case details for

Jones v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT JONES and VALERIE JONES, Respondents, v. ANDREA SCOTT, Appellant

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 2003

Citations

2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51380 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)