Opinion
No. 570397/14.
2014-11-3
Elizabeth SALAWAY, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mario BOSQUEZ, Respondent–Appellant, and “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” Respondents–Undertenants.
Respondent Mario Bosquez appeals from (1) an order of Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated June 24, 2013, which denied his motion for a stay of the within holdover summary proceeding pending the determination of his Loft Board coverage application and granted petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment of possession, and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated June 5, 2014, which denied respondent's motion for leave to reargue and renew the aforesaid order.
Present: SCHOENFELD, J.P., SHULMAN, LING–COHAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated June 24, 2013, modified to deny petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment of possession; as modified, order affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Brenda S. Spears), dated June 5, 2014, dismissed, without costs, as academic with respect to renewal and as taken from a nonappealable order with respect to reargument.
The record raises triable issues of fact concerning respondent Bosquez's illusory tenancy defense, including whether petitioner-prime tenant “engaged in unlawful rent profiteering after long ago vacating the premises” ( 545 Eighth Ave. Assocs. v. Shanaman, 12 Misc.3d 66, 68 [2006]; see Primrose Mgt. Co. v. Donahoe, 253 A.D.2d 404 [1998] ), and whether the (non-party) landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of the subleasing arrangement between petitioner and respondent ( see Bruenn v. Cole, 165 A.D.2d 443 [1991] ). The conflicting evidence presents questions of credibility that must await trial ( see Brown Simon & Furtsch (88th) LLC v. Jacobs, 7 Misc.3d 135[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 50767[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005] ).
We sustain the denial of respondent's motion to stay the proceeding pending the Loft Board's resolution of his belatedly-filed (post-petition) coverage application. The bona fides of respondent's illusory tenancy defense may readily be adjudicated in Civil Court without resort to agency involvement ( see generally Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart v. Meer, 131 A.D.2d 393 [1987]; Bozzi v. Goldblatt, 160 A.D.2d 647 [1990] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.