Ladines v. 426-428 W. 48th St. Assocs. LP

Full title: FELIX LADINES and JENNIFER LADINES, Plaintiffs, v. 426-428 WEST 48TH…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : PART 2

Date published: Dec 17, 2014

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 33633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

Opinion

Index No. 101701/2013

12-17-2014

FELIX LADINES and JENNIFER LADINES, Plaintiffs, v. 426-428 WEST 48TH STREET ASSOCIATES LP and MARIN MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants.

KATHRYN E. FREED, J.S.C.

DECISION & ORDER
Motion Sequence 001
KATHRYN E. FREED, J.S.C. RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2219 (a), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION:

PAPERS	NUMBERED
NOTICE OF MOTION AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED	1,2 (Exs. A-I)
NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED	3,4 (Exs. A-K)
AFFIDAVIT IN OPP. TO CROSS MOTION	..5 (Exs. A-I)..

UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THE MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs seek to obtain succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment which was previously the residence of decedent Francisca Ladines, the mother of co-plaintiff Felix Ladines. Plaintiffs aver that they have resided in the apartment for the minimum required period of one year in order to care for Mr. Ladines' mother. In addition, they claim that the apartment contains hazardous conditions actionable under Real Property Law 235-b and section 27-2005 of the City's Housing Maintenance Code, that defendants have illegally attempted to coerce them to leave the apartment by cutting off their utilities, and that plaintiff is a disabled person within the meaning of the Rent Stabilization Law. Plaintiffs purchased an index number on December 17, 2013 and filed a request for judicial intervention on February 13, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, defendant 426-428 West 48^th Street Associates LP commenced a holdover proceeding against plaintiffs in Housing Court, claiming that plaintiffs moved into the apartment only after Francisca Ladines died and that they have not paid the required rent for the apartment. Therefore, it seeks to evict plaintiffs from the apartment. In the holdover proceeding, in addition to several other defenses and objections, plaintiffs again claimed that the apartment contained hazardous conditions actionable under RPL 235-b and that they had the right to succeed as tenants of the rent-stabilized apartment.

Plaintiffs now move for a stay of the Housing Court proceeding pending the resolution of this action. The basis for this request is that they filed this lawsuit months before the Housing Court proceeding was commenced against them and thus, under First Department precedent, the issues should be decided in this action. Defendants cross-move to stay this action pending the determination of the Housing Court proceeding, asserting that rent succession and eviction matters should be resolved in the Civil Court, where complete relief can be afforded to a tenant.

Plaintiffs rely on Eckstein v New York Univ., 270 AD2d 208 (1^st Dept 2000) and on Shadick v 430 Realty Co., 250 AD2d 417 (1^st Dept 1998) for the proposition that a Supreme Court action for declaratory relief may proceed when there is no Housing Court matter pending. Eckstein, 270 AD2d, supra at 208; Shadick, 250 AD2d, supra at 418.¹

1 Plaintiffs also indicate that a second Housing Court proceeding was brought against them by defendants.

Although both parties raise sound arguments, plaintiffs overstate the importance of resolving matters in the case which was commenced first. Instead, there is overwhelming precedent in favor of resolving matters in Housing Court. See, e.g., Simens v Darwish, 105 AD3d 686 (1^st Dept 2013); 44.46 West 65^th Apartment Corp. v Stvan, 3 AD3d 440, 441 (1^st Dept 2004). Only if the issues cannot be resolved in Civil Court does this principle not apply. See Murphy v 317-319 Second Realty LLC, 95 AD3d 443, 444 (1^st Dept 2012); Stvan, 3 AD3d, supra at 441. In Brecker v 295 Central Park West, Inc., 71 AD3d 564 (1^st Dept 2010), the Appellate Division, First Department held that:

When no other action or proceeding is pending in Civil Court, a tenant may commence an action in Supreme Court seeking a declaration of succession rights . . . . However, Civil Court is the strongly preferred forum for resolving such landlord-tenant disputes. Once a summary proceeding has been commenced in Civil Court where complete relief can be afforded to the tenant, there is no further basis for invoking the equitable jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

Id., at 565 (citations omitted). Therefore, this action should be stayed pending resolution of all matters properly brought in the Civil Court. If any issues remain at that time, the parties may move to lift the stay and proceed. If not, plaintiffs should discontinue this action.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the motion is denied and the cross-motion is granted to the extent of staying further proceedings in this action, except for an application to vacate or modify said stay or to discontinue the action; and it is further,

ORDERED that either party may make an application by order to show cause to vacate or modify this stay upon the final determination of the actions/proceedings known as 426-428 West 48^th St. Assoc. LP v Felix Ladines, et al, Index No.: L&T 68398/2014 and 426-428 West 48^th St. Assoc., LP v Felix E. Ladines Appointed as Administrator of the Estate of Francisca Ladines, et al, Index No: L&T 683360/2014; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross-movant is directed to file a copy of this order with notice of entry on the Trial Support Office (Room 158); and it is further,

ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the court.

DATED: December 17, 2014

ENTER:

/s/ _________

KATHRYN E. FREED, J.S.C.