From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lemish v. East-West Renovating Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 28, 1989
156 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 28, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard N. Cohen, J.).


In dismissing plaintiff's complaint which seeks the return of possession and damages resulting from his wrongful eviction and repayment of alleged rent overcharges, the IAS court found that plaintiff had been evicted pursuant to lawfully issued process and that the claim for rent overcharges was premature because of a pending administrative proceeding.

However, unlike Campbell v Maslin ( 91 A.D.2d 559, affd 59 N.Y.2d 722), relied upon by the court below, where the tenant defaulted in a nonpayment proceeding and never contested the issuance of the warrant of eviction, the parties here entered into several stipulations of settlement following the initial default judgment and plaintiff appealed the denial of his motion to vacate the warrant of eviction. While there was no stay of execution of the warrant in effect at the time of plaintiff's eviction on July 8, 1986, the Appellate Term's subsequent reversal and vacatur of said warrant, on December 23, 1986, restored the parties to the status quo ante (Golde Clothes Shop v Loew's Buffalo Theatres, 236 N.Y. 465, 470-472).

Ordinarily, the vacatur of the judgment of eviction removes the lawful basis for a landlord's repossession (see, Golde Clothes Shop v Loew's Buffalo Theatres, supra); he is precluded from pleading reliance on a valid judgment of possession at the time of eviction (Mon Amour Rest. v Helgeson, 90 A.D.2d 742, 744), and the tenant is thereby entitled to be restored to the premises and to damages (Maracina v Shirrmeister, 105 A.D.2d 672, 673; Dzubey v Teachers' Coll., 87 A.D.2d 783, 784). Here, however, the Appellate Term did not vacate the underlying default judgment, but merely vacated the warrant of eviction, finding that plaintiff had substantially complied with his obligations under the various stipulations. Under these circumstances and on the present sparse record, both cross motions for summary judgment should have been denied.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.


Summaries of

Lemish v. East-West Renovating Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 28, 1989
156 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Lemish v. East-West Renovating Company

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS LEMISH, Appellant, v. EAST-WEST RENOVATING COMPANY et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 28, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
549 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

Zaidman v. Babbage

Their cumulative testimony lacked merit and/or was irrelevant. Pursuant to RPAPL § 853, a wrongful eviction…

Rockaway One Co. v. Williams

The order to show cause contained a temporary stay conditioned upon tenant's deposit of the $1,738.11 into…