Opinion
10516N Index 157084/14
12-05-2019
Stefan NIEBORAK, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. W54–7 LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Hertz Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for Appellant. Rozen Law Group, New York (Jennifer A. Rozen of counsel), for Respondents.
Hertz Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for Appellant.
Rozen Law Group, New York (Jennifer A. Rozen of counsel), for Respondents.
Richter, J.P., Gische, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered April 16, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to renew plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant failed to explain why the voluminous documents that it concedes were in its possession at the time plaintiffs made their motion, and were "recovered" before the motion was decided, were not submitted with its original opposition papers ( CPLR 2221[e][3] ; Gordon v. 476 Broadway Realty Corp. , 161 A.D.3d 417, 418, 73 N.Y.S.3d 883 [1st Dept.. 2018], lv dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1078, 89 N.Y.S.3d 108, 113 N.E.3d 942 [2018] ).
The limited issues we are deciding in this appeal do not implicate the Housing Stabilization and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA).