Full text
Morningside Life Residence LP v. Goode
Morningside Life Residence LP v Goode 2025 NY Slip Op 30015(U) January 2, 2025 Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 321613/23 Judge: Yekaterina Blinova Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
INDEX FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 01/07/2025 03:12 PMNO. LT-321613-23/NY [HO] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2025
CIVIL co RT OF THE OF EW YORKen y COUNTY OF EW YORK: HOUSING PART C -------------------------------------------------------------------X MORNINGSID E LIFE RESTO - CE LP, Index o. 321613 /23
Petitioner, DECISIO /ORDER -aga inst- Mot. Seq. 01
HOPE GOODE '·JOHN DOE," "JA E DO E,'
Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. YEKAT - RI A BLI OVA , JHC
Recitation, as required by CPLR § 22 l 9(a), of the papers considered in the review of respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR § 321 l(a)(7).
YSCEF Doc Nos.: 7 - 25
Petitioner commenced this summary holdover proceeding, all eging that the apartment is
not subject to R nt Stabilization or Rent Control because the premises are a subsidized multifamil y
housing project regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development. Respondent
appeared by counsel, and moved for an order dismissing the proceeding pursuant to CPLR § 32 11
(a) (7) and RSC (9 NYCRR) 2524.2 alleging that petition fails to state a cause of action as it
does not accurately plead the r gulatory status of the subject premi ses. Specifically, respondent
argues that contrary to paragraph 6 of the petition, the apartment is in fact subject to rent
stabi li zation and was registered a such with DHCR most recently for the year 2021. Petitioner
ac knowledges that the most recent tenant of record Lester Holiday held a rent stabilized lea , but
argues that because the apartment is subject to HUD regulations, the petition's pleading was a
sufficient description of the apartment's regulatory tatus.
INDEX FILED: NEW YORK CIVIL COURT - L&T 01/07/2025 03:12 PMNO. LT-321613-23/NY [HO] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2025
Footnotes
[1] of 2 [* 1] Pursuant to RP APL §741 a petition in a ummary eviction proceeding must state the interest petitioner' s interest in the subject premises. Where the tenancy is subject to a specific form of regulation , such regulatory status must be described in the petition as it detennines the scope of the parties ' rights in the proceeding (Vo lunteers ofAmerica-Greater N. Y , Inc. v. Almonte ,
[17] Misc. 3d 57 [App Term 2d Dept 200 7] aff'd Matter of Volunteers ofAmerica-Greater N. Y , In c. v. Almonte, 65 A.D.3d 1155 [2d Dept 2009]. Court repeatedly found petitions which plead rent- stabilized status of the premises but omit additiona l applicable regulatory schemes to be in violation of RP APL §741 (Jasper, l.I'. v Davis, 63 Misc. 3d 1209(A) [Civ Ct Bx Cty 2019] ; Westchester Gardens, L.P. v. Lanclos, 43 Misc. 3d 681 . 682 [Civ Ct Bx Cty 2014] ; Dewitt Luxury Home Inc. v. Lewis. 84 i c. 3d 1225 (A) [Ci v Ct. Kings Cty 2024]). Similarly, thi principle applies here where the converse is true, as petitioner pleaded that the apa rtment is subject to HUD regulations but omitted its rent stabili zed status, in fact specificall y stating that the apartment is not subject to rent stabilization. The Court further notes that no motions have been made to amend the petition and the description of the premises ' regulatory status therein. Based on the foregoing , respondent's motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: Tew York, New York January 2, 2025 J~ii= ~~•~g~:T Yekaterina Blinova, Judge Civil Court, Housing Part [* 2] 2 of 2