Opinion
2020-377 K C 2021-134 K C 2021-135 K C
04-22-2022
Shlomo Karpen, Appellant, v. Julio Andrade, Respondent. Shlomo Karpen, Appellant, v. Manuel Castro and Miriam Andrade, Respondents. Shlomo Karpen, Appellant, Juan Pablo Arevalo and Guadalupe Romero, Respondents.
Wenig Saltiel, LLP, Dan M. Blumenthal and Meryl L. Wenig of counsel, for appellant. Communities Resist, Adam Meyers of counsel, for respondents.
Unpublished Opinion
Wenig Saltiel, LLP, Dan M. Blumenthal and Meryl L. Wenig of counsel, for appellant.
Communities Resist, Adam Meyers of counsel, for respondents.
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, CHEREE A. BUGGS, JJ
Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.; op 66 Misc.3d 362 [2019]), entered November 20, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, upon, in effect, consolidating three owner's use holdover proceedings for the purposes of disposition of tenants' three identical motions to dismiss the respective petitions, granted the motions.
ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for the purposes of disposition; and it is further, ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, tenants' motions to dismiss the respective petitions are denied, the petitions are reinstated, and the matters are remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings.
Landlord commenced three owner's use proceedings against the tenants of three apartments in the same six-unit building seeking to gain possession of the apartments in order to create two duplex apartments for landlord's two children and their families. The three proceedings were transferred to the same Part of the Housing Court for joint resolution. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) was enacted, which included changes to the owner's use regulations. Specifically, Section 2 of Part I of the HSTPA modified Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-511 (c) (9) (b) by imposing stricter requirements for a landlord to be able to recover possession for the owner's use by limiting recovery to one apartment and requiring the landlord to demonstrate "immediate and compelling necessity." In each proceeding, tenant(s) moved to dismiss the petition based upon the new, heightened standard. The Civil Court, in effect, consolidated the proceedings for the purposes of disposing of tenants' respective motions. Landlord appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a single order entered November 20, 2019, as granted each of tenants' motions and dismissed the respective petitions (Karpen v Castro, 66 Misc.3d 362 [2019]).
As the retroactive application of HSTPA Part I to pending cases is "preclude[d]" (Harris v Israel, 191 A.D.3d 468, 470 [2021]; see also Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332 [2020]), landlord's failure to meet the standards set forth in the amended statute is not a basis to dismiss the petition in each of these proceedings.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, tenants' motions to dismiss the respective petitions are denied, the petitions are reinstated, and the matters are remitted to the Civil Court for further proceedings.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and BUGGS, JJ., concur.