DD 11th Ave., LLC v. SansDD 11th Ave., LLC v. Sans
against
David Sans, and Catherine Berge, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.
Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered January 29, 2018, which granted landlord's cross motion for summary judgment of possession and denied, as moot, tenant's motion for discovery in a holdover summary proceeding, (2) a final judgment (same court and Judge), entered February 9, 2018, which awarded possession to landlord, (3) an order (same court and Judge) entered April 9, 2018, which denied tenant's motion to reargue and renew the final judgment entered February 9, 2018 and (4) an order (same court and Judge) dated September 11, 2018, which denied tenant's motion to vacate the final judgment entered February 9, 2018 pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) and CPLR 5015(a)(3).
Per Curiam.
Final judgment (Jack Stoller, J.), entered February 9, 2018, affirmed, with $25 costs. Orders (Jack Stoller, J.), entered April 9, 2018 and dated September 11, 2018, respectively, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Jack Stoller, J.), entered January 29, 2018, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.
The summary judgment record conclusively establishes that tenant was in "material noncompliance" with the lease since he failed to disclose all of his income in his initial 2012 application for the low-income, subsidized tenancy at issue (see 501 W. 41st St. Assoc. v Annunziata,
In addition, tenant also failed to provide the requisite information regarding household composition. Tenant's teenage nephew and niece were listed as members of the household when tenant applied for and took occupancy of this apartment on May 1, 2012. However, tenant failed to inform the landlord at any time during that year or on his subsequent 2013 Household Eligibility Questionnaire or 2013 Tenant Income Certification that his nephew never occupied the unit and that his niece departed in August 2012, leaving him in sole occupancy of the subject two-bedroom, rent-stabilized apartment at that juncture.
Tenant's subsequent motions were also properly denied. The court providently exercised its discretion in denying renewal (see Branham v R.V. Ambulette, Inc.,
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 03, 2019