Brodie, Matter of v. Alam

Matter of Brodie v Alam (2022 NY Slip Op 50151(U)) [*1] Matter of Brodie v Alam 2022 NY Slip Op 50151(U) [74 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on February 25, 2022 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on February 25, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ 2019-1546 K C In the Matter of the Application of Tyrone Brodie, Nathaniel Griffin, Ellison McKnight, Moses Witty, Michael Edwards, and Tyrell Peace, etc., Appellants, against Mazeda Alam, City of New York, PNC Mortgage A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank National Association, and Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondents. Veterans Justice Project of Brooklyn Legal Services (Vance Gathing of counsel), for appellants. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (Kevin Osowski and Jeremy W. Shweder of counsel), for respondent DHPD. Bass Associates of NY, PLLC (no brief filed), for respondent Mazeda Alam. Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jeannine B. Kuzniewski, J.; op 62 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51966[U] [2018]), dated October 15, 2018, and from an order of that court dated May 31, 2019. The order dated October 15, 2018, insofar as appealed from, denied tenants' cross motion for summary judgment in a proceeding for the appointment of an administrator pursuant to RPAPL 778, and, upon searching the record, dismissed their petition. The order dated May 31, 2019 denied tenants' subsequent motion for, in effect, leave to reargue and/or renew their cross motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that the order dated October 15, 2018, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs; and it is further; ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 31, 2019 is dismissed. Six tenants, living in separate units, commenced this proceeding for the appointment, pursuant to RPAPL 778, of a 7-A administrator in order to maintain the subject building, which, pursuant to the certificate of occupancy, is a legal two-family house. The petition alleges, among other things, that there were several class B violations imposed by the New York City Department of Housing and Preservation Development (HPD) for illegal occupancy in at least four of their units, not including the cellar units which were the subject of a separate New York [*2]City Department of Buildings vacate order. HPD moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition and tenants cross-moved for summary judgment appointing a 7-A administrator. In an order dated October 15, 2018, the Civil Court (Jeannine B. Kuzniewski, J.) denied tenants' cross motion and, upon searching the record, dismissed their petition (see CPLR 3212 [b]), and denied HPD's motion as moot (Matter of Brodie v Alam, 62 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51966[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2018]). In an order dated May 31, 2019, the Civil Court denied tenants' motion for, in effect, leave to reargue and/or renew their prior cross motion for summary judgment. The appeal from the order dated May 31, 2019 is dismissed as abandoned as there are no issues raised in tenants' brief with respect to that order (see Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611 [2009]; B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 146[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50493[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). Moreover, no appeal lies from the denial of reargument (see Liang v Yi Jing Tan, 155 AD3d 1022 [2017]; Bermudez v City of New York, 66 AD3d 724 [2009]). We need not reach the issue of whether the grounds for the appointment of a 7-A administrator have been met or that funds were available to conduct the repairs tenants alleged were required since, in any event, the Civil Court correctly determined that the appointment of a 7-A administrator would be futile. The administrator would not be able to properly repair and maintain the premises without evicting most, if not all, of the tenants who commenced the proceeding. Indeed, even assuming such repairs were possible, many of those tenants would not be able to move back in due to the legal status of the building as a two-family house (see McGovern v 310 Riverside Corp., 49 AD2d 949, 949 [1975]). Nonetheless as the lower court cautioned, the respondent landlord, "is still legally obligated . . . to correct the violations of record, to maintain all essential services and to not engage in any conduct that falls within the definition of harassment under the NYC Administrative Code" (Matter of Brodie v Alam, 2018 NY Slip Op 51966[U], *3). Accordingly, the order dated October 15, 2018, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed. ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: February 25, 2022