1. ENTERED on December 2, 2014, New York State Supreme Court – New York County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Default Judgment and allowing service of Late Answer.
2. ENTERED on June 08, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Nassau County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Default Judgment and allowing service of Late Answer “The issue of compliance with RPAPL 1304 was not waived by the failure to answer. Compliance with 1304 is an essential element of plaintiff’s cause of action […] Defendant has challenged the impact of the tracking number contained on the 1304 notice. ” *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
3. ENTERED on September 15, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Default and Summary Judgment as “The affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel does not constitute admissible proof that plaintiff received physical possession of the consolidated note prior to commencement of the action […] In addition, plaintiff failed to establish it strictly complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 ” *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
4. DECIDED on September 16, 2015 Appellate Division, Second Department – In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), entered May 30, 2014, which granted the motion of the defendant George Zouvelos pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 7, 2014, in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the total sum of $41,849.53, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant George Zouvelos to vacate the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against him is denied.
See also:
www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06786.htm
www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06786.htm
law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2015/2014-08636.html
*Subscribers only
5. ENTERED on September 21, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County –Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Plaintiff Default and Summary Judgment because “plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service evidencing that it properly served the [defendant] pursuant to RPAPL 1304” *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
6. ENTERED on November 23, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County –Order in New York Foreclosure Matter DENYING Plaintiff ORDER OF REFERENCE and DISMISSING MATTER pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
7. ENTERED on November 23, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
8. ENTERED on December 10, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
9. ENTERED on December 16, 2015, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
10. ENTERED on February 23, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Bronx County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for discontinuance and ordering a Traverse Hearing for a jurisdictional determination. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
11. SO ORDERED on March 15, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Bronx County – New York Foreclosure Matter Vacating Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and allowing Late Answer (ten years after case commencement)
12. ENTERED on March 24, 2016, Appellate Division, Second Department – Motion by the Respondent for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County DENIED
13. ENTERED on April 01, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Bronx County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Summary Judgment as Plaintiff failed to make a showing that it complied with RPAPL 1304 and Plaintiff also failed to make a prima facie showing that it has standing to maintain the action. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
14. ENTERED on April 04, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Vacating Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, the Foreclosure Auction Sale and referee’s deed. Case dismissed!
15. ENTERED on July 29, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Bronx County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Summary Judgment as Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that it has standing to maintain the action. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
16. ENTERED on or about August 3, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Suffolk County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter Denying Summary Judgment as Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that it it complied with RPAPL 1304. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
17. ENTERED on or about September 28, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Queens County – Order in New York Foreclosure Matter ordering a Traverse Hearing for a jurisdictional determination. *Obtained as Associate Counsel to an Outside Firm
18. ENTERED on or about October 25, 2016, New York State Supreme Court – Kings County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter pursuant to CPLR 602(b), removing summary holdover proceeding and consolidating that proceeding with the underlying Supreme Court Action
19. ENTERED on or about March, 2017, New York State Supreme Court – Kings County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter pursuant to CPLR 602(b), removing summary holdover proceeding and consolidating that proceeding with the underlying Supreme Court Action
20. ENTERED on or about August, 2017, New York State Supreme Court – Appellate Division Second Department – Order in New York Foreclosure matter from the Appellate Division Second Department, granting homeowner a stay pursuant to CPLR §§ 2201 and 5519 pending Appeal
No URL defined for Wonder PDF Embed
21. ENTERED on or about September, 2017, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as reasonable application of RPAPL 735 was made given the facts of the matter.
22a. ENTERED on or about April, 2018, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure of Landlord to obtain a Certificate of Eviction against a rent controlled tenant pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 26-408(b); and dismissing the matter in its entirety.
22b. ENTERED on or about August, 2018, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter denying Petitioner Landlord’s motion to re-argue and further holding that a Landlord is required to allege and prove obtaining a Certificate of Eviction against a rent controlled tenant pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 26-408(b) OR file the Notice of Non-Renewal with the DHCR within 48 hours of service of said notice upon a rent controlled tenant; and maintaining dismissal of the matter in its entirety.
23. ENTERED on or about May, 2018, Civil Court of the City of New York – Bronx County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure of Landlord to state a cause of action for nuisance against a rent stabilized tenant and dismissing the matter in its entirety.
24. ENTERED on or about June, 2018, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion for a stay of eviction pending appeal pursuant to CPLR § 5519(a)(6), and directing an undertaking to be paid by Respondent that is rationally related to the amount of the potential damages to be incurred by Petitioner (i.e. post petition accrued use and occupancy as well as ongoing Use and Occupancy Payments pending decision on appeal)
25. ENTERED on or about June, 2018, Supreme Court of the State of New York – Bronx County – Order in New York Foreclosure matter granting Defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 allowing Defendant to amend his answer to include a statute of limitations defense.
Published Online: law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2018/2018-ny-slip-op-51067-u.html
26. ENTERED on or about October, 2018, Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County – Order denying Plaintiff Landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment in lieu of a complaint upon a commercial lease because a lease is not an instrument for the payment of money only within the contemplation of CPLR § 3213
27. ENTERED on or about December, 2018, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion for a stay of eviction pending appeal pursuant to CPLR § 5519(a)(6), and directing an undertaking to be paid by Respondent
28. ENTERED on or about January, 2019, Civil Court of the City of New York – Bronx County – Order in Bronx, New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion for a stay of eviction pending appeal pursuant to CPLR § 5519(a)(6), and directing an undertaking to be paid by Respondent that is rationally related to the amount of the potential damages to be incurred by Petitioner (i.e. potential legal fees incurred by Petitioner upon appeal)
29. ENTERED on or about April, 2019, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department- Appellate Term Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter vacating default judgment against Tenant(s) (“Considering the strong policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits (see Chevalier v. 368 E. 148th St. Assoc., LLC, 80 AD3d 411, 413—414 [2011]), we favorably exercise our discretion and grant appellant’s motion to vacate the portion of the default judgment awarding petitioner possession as against her.”
Published Online: law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-term-first-department/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-50450-u.html ; www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20180524387
30. ENTERED on or about June, 2019, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department- Appellate Term Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter reversing judgment of the Civil Court granting Landlord/Petitioner possession after review of an order of the same court which denied tenant’s motion to dismiss the proceeding. (“Turning to the merits, the defense should not have been stricken on the ground that it was waived when tenant interposed an unrelated counterclaim. Although the assertion of an unrelated counterclaim will waive a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction (see Textile Tech. Exch. v Davis, 81 NY2d 56 [1993]), this rule has no application to a defense challenging the service of a predicate notice of termination because such defense does not implicate personal jurisdiction (see 156 Nassau Ave. HDFC v Tchernitsky, 62 Misc 3d 140[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50059[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).”)
Published Online: law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-term-first-department/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-51016-u.html ; www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4632212/nguyen-v-perparim/ ; casetext.com/case/nguyen-v-perparim
31. ENTERED on or about July, 2019, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order in New York, New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Tenant(s)’ Motion to amend the initial filed pro se answer pursuant to inter alia CPLR 3025(b) to include additional defenses and counterclaims of (but not limited to) Complete Constructive Eviction and Tenant Harrasment.
32. ENTERED on or about July, 2019, Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County – Order in a Landlord/Tenant Airbnb / Short Term Rental ejectment action denying Landlord’s request for an injunction and dismissing the matter in its entirety for Landlord’s failure to comply with, inter alia RSL § 2524’s Termination Notice requirement(s).
33. ENTERED on or about September 27, 2019, Civil Court of the City of New York – Kings County – Order/Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter denying Landlord’s post settlement motion seeking to hold Respondent-Tenant in default of settlement agreement. Said decision also holding that rent stabilized “law requires that a tenant is to be offered a one or two year [lease] for the tenant to choose”
34. ENTERED on or about October 25, 2019, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Order/Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter awarding Respondent-Tenant legal fees, granting Respondent-Tenant’s Motion to dismiss for Petitioner’s lack of standing and holding that Petitioner’s failure to serve a RR-1 notice upon Respondent-Tenant and file same with DHCR tolled Respondent-Tenant’s time to file a fair market appeal and also holding that the rent rate for the Respondent-Tenant should be the amount paid by the exiting rent-controlled tenant.
35. ENTERED on or about March 10, 2020, Civil Court of the City of New York – BRONX County – Order/Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Respondent-Tenant’s Motion to dismiss for Petitioner’s lack of standing pursuant to RPAPL 721.
36. ENTERED on or about October 1, 2020, Civil Court of the City of New York – NEW YORK County – Order/Decision in New York Landlord Tenant Matter granting Respondent-Tenant’s Motion to dismiss for Petitioner’s failure to provide respondent with the additional notice of non-payment as required now by RPL Section 235-e(d).
37. ENTERED on or about January 26, 2021, Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County – Order in a Landlord/Tenant Short Term Rental ejectment action denying Landlord’s request for an injunction and dismissing the matter in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs failure to serve Defendant pursuant to inter alia, CPLR 308(4).
38. ENTERED on or about December 20, 2021, Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County – Order in a Landlord/Tenant Short Term Rental ejectment action vacating all default judgments/orders, denying Landlord’s request for an injunction, and dismissing the matter in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs failure to serve Defendant pursuant to inter alia, CPLR 308(4).
39. ENTERED on or about March 31, 2023, Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County – Decision/Order by The Hon. Arlene Bluth denying Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the action with a pending proceeding in landlord-tenant/stay the landlord-tenant matter and granting Defendant’s (Client) motion to dismiss the proceeding and granting judgment in Defendant’s favor pursuant to inter alia EPTL 6-2.2(b) awarding 100% of the stock in the HDFC coop to Defendant Client.
40. ENTERED on or about May 1, 2023, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Decision/Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment after the completion of discovery in a licensee holdover where Client Respondent alleges succession rights as a non-traditional family member.
41. ENTERED on or about May 8, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Decision/Order after Trial by The Hon. Jack Stoller holding that both Respondent and Co-Respondent were family members (sons) of the Prior Tenants , and as they both resided with the Prior Tenants for two years before any conceivable time that the Prior Tenants permanently vacated, the Court dismissed the holdover proceeding, as Respondents not being licensees have an entitlement to a renewal lease under the Rent Stabilization Law (See Public Housing Law §14(4)(a), 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §2523.5(b)(2) A family member can succeed to a Rent-Stabilized tenancy if the family member resided with the tenant for two years immediately preceding the permanent vacatur of the tenant, “permanent vacatur” meaning the date when the tenant permanently stops residing in the housing accommodation.)
42. ENTERED on or about July 15, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Decision/Order after Trial by The Alberto M. Gonzalez, HCJ dismissing a holdover proceeding where the Landlord claimed the tenant Respondents failed to use the rent stabilized apartment as their primary residence as required by law. The court held that the predicate notice served by the Landlord was insufficient to survive Respondent’s motion to dismiss due in part to Petitioner failing to provide a time frame (specific months) concerning the allegations that the Respondent tenants lived elsewhere during parts of the year.
43. ENTERED on or about August 6, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County – Decision/Order after Trial by The Hon. Jack Stoller dismissing a holdover proceeding by holding that Respondent (the first tenant after a Rent Controlled occupancy) is entitled to a rent stabilized lease because when a rent-controlled unit becomes vacant, it is automatically subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, ___N.Y.3d___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 03378, *1 (Court of Appeals 2024). The first rent after an apartment comes out of Rent Control is an “initial legal regulated rent,” 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §2521.1(a)(1), a qualification of the “legal regulated rent” needed to deregulate an apartment, perhaps, but a “legal regulated rent” all the same. As Petitioner in this case never registered Respondent’s rent, the subject premises never had the kind of “legal regulated rent” exceeding $2,000 necessary to deregulate the subject premises. As the exit of the subject premises from the Rent Control Law rendered it subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and it was not deregulated, the subject premises remains rent-stabilized. Petitioner Landlord cannot therefore terminate Respondent’s tenancy without cause.
44. ENTERED on or about August 12, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – Kings County County – Decision/Order after Trial by The Hon. Sergio Jimenez denying Petitioner’s demand for $80,450.00 in use and occupancy in a holdover proceeding because Respondent proved that Petitioner had knowledge and acquiesced to use of the cellar as living space contrary to the legal use. The Court held that it is well-settled law that a principal is bound to knowledge of an agent in all matters within the scope of his agency, even in situations where the information may not have actually been communicated citing to (Farr v. Newman, 14 NY2d 183 [1964]). The Court further held that there was ample proof that the Petitioner knew that the cellar was being used as a living space.
45. ENTERED on or about September 19, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County County – Decision upon a motion to dismiss by The Hon. Alberto Gonzalez dismissing a non-payment proceeding where Petitioner failed to prove/plead compliance with the five day demand pursuant to RPL 235-e(D). The Court held that Petitioner’s compliance is a “material allegation” to its cause of action, and its noncompliance requires dismissal citing to Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,ll5 A.D.3d 128,980 N.Y.S.2d 2l (App. Div. l’t. Dep’t. 2014).
46. ENTERED on or about September 30, 2024, Civil Court of the City of New York – New York County County – Decision by The Hon. Vijay M. Kitson vacating default judgments entered after inquest against Respondent(s) pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) holding that Respondent articulated a potentially meritorious defense (Petitioner failed to serve all notices required by paragraph seventeen of the lease to terminate Respondent’s tenancy) and excusable default (caring for their family abroad and thus was not aware of this proceeding until he returned to constitutes an .
