74-52 Cypress Hills St. LLC v. Veres
2024 NY Slip Op 51578(U)
Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty.2024Background
- The petitioner, 74-52 Cypress Hills St. LLC, initiated a holdover summary eviction proceeding based on a 10-day notice to quit, alleging that respondent Malgorzata Maria Veres was a licensee who overstayed after her spouse vacated the premises.
- The property in question has been occupied by Veres since 2011, originally with her then-husband (who is the son of one of the petitioner's members).
- Respondent filed an Answer with defenses and counterclaims and later sought permission to file an amended Answer, which the court granted.
- The petitioner moved to strike the respondent's Answer and counterclaims, arguing they consisted of conclusory and unsupported allegations.
- Central factual dispute: Whether Veres is a licensee (who can be removed on short notice), or a tenant at will/by sufferance (entitled to longer notice and different procedures).
- The predicate notice and deed refer to the history of possession and property ownership, but do not expressly document a licensee arrangement after Veres's spouse left.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Veres a licensee subject to eviction on a 10-day notice under RPAPL 713? | Yes; Veres lost her right to occupancy after her spouse, the original occupant, left; she is now merely a licensee. | No; Veres has occupied the premises continuously since 2011 with fee owner's consent; she is at minimum a tenant at will/by sufferance, not a licensee. | No; Veres is not a licensee. |
| Was the predicate notice (10-day quit) sufficient for removal? | Yes; as a licensee, only a 10-day notice is required. | No; as a tenant at will, at least a 30-day notice or different statutory procedure is required. | Predicate notice insufficient; summary proceeding dismissed. |
| Should Veres's Amended Answer be accepted? | No; answer is conclusory and should be struck. | Yes; amendment is proper and not prejudicial. | Yes; amendment allowed. |
| Are respondent's jurisdictional defenses based on service of process valid? | N/A (Respondent withdrew this defense during argument). | Originally raised but withdrawn. | Defense stricken as withdrawn. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarsfield v. Healy, 50 Barb. 245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1867) (Occupation with permission without duration or rent creates tenancy at will)
- Maffetone v. Micari, 205 Misc. 459 (Queens Mun. Ct. 1954) (Entry without reserved rent or tenure is tenancy at will)
- Brennecke v. Smith, 42 Misc. 2d 935 (Westchester Co. Ct. 1964) (Spouse continues possession as tenant at will upon separation)
- Hughes v. Quingling Zhao, 82 Misc. 3d 347 (Nassau City Ct. 2023) (Spouse cannot evict spouse via summary proceeding absent court order or annulment)