Emerald Lofts LLC. v. Echevarria
2025 NY Slip Op 25131
Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty.2025Background
- Emerald Lofts LLC initiated a holdover eviction proceeding against Guadalupe Echevarria after serving a 90-day termination notice in July 2024.
- The landlord argued the building was exempt from rent regulation and Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) because it was built after 1974, and the tenant held a Section 8 voucher.
- Echevarria challenged the eviction, claiming Emerald Lofts failed to plead why the unit was exempt from GCEL, and that a Section 8 voucher does not exempt the unit.
- The petitioner cross-moved to amend the petition to state GCEL exemption due to Section 8 status and argued the termination notice predated GCEL's notice requirements.
- The tenant asserted the landlord is not a small landlord and failed to establish exemption from GCEL on any valid grounds.
- The court addressed both the sufficiency of the pleadings under GCEL and whether a Section 8 voucher constitutes an exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of GCEL Notice in Petition | Initial termination notice sufficient; will amend for GCEL | Failure to plead GCEL coverage or exemption requires dismissal | Petitioner may amend petition to add GCEL exemption language |
| Exemption from GCEL for Section 8 Voucher | Section 8 tenant-based voucher exempts unit from GCEL | Section 8 portable voucher does not exempt unit from GCEL | Portable voucher does not create exemption from GCEL |
| Applicability of GCEL to Eviction Actions | GCEL does not apply because of Section 8 status | GCEL applies since unit is not otherwise regulated | GCEL applies to this unit |
| Leave to Amend Petition | Petitioner should be allowed to amend petition | N/A | Leave to amend granted, but motion to dismiss still granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 NY2d 314 (NY 2002) (Dismissal under CPLR 3211[a][1] only when documentary evidence utterly refutes claims)
- Fortis Fin. Servs. v. Fimat Futures USA, 290 AD2d 383 (1st Dep’t 2002) (Documentary evidence must be undisputed, resolve all factual issues as matter of law)
- Rochdale Village Inc. v. Zimmerman, 2 AD3d 827 (2d Dep’t 2003) (Pleadings must state a cognizable cause of action under CPLR 3211[a][7])
- Fishberger v. Vos, 51 AD3d 627 (2d Dep’t 2008) (Liberal construction of pleadings; motion to dismiss denied if any cause of action is made out)
- Tapis v. Successful Management Corp., 79 AD3d 422 (1st Dep’t 2010) (Section 8 program is voluntary; state laws may provide extra protections for recipients)