Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
SIDRANE & SCHWARTZ-SIDRANE, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner Michael Littman, Esq.
FISHMAN & MALLON, LLP Attorneys for Respondent Mika Dashman, Esq.
SABRINA B. KRAUS, JHC
This summary holdover proceeding was commenced by 285 MADISON REALTY, LLC (Petitioner) against MICHELL MOODIE (Respondent) seeking to recover possession of Apt 4D at 238 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 (Subject Premises) based on the allegation that Respondent's lease had expired on April 30, 2013, and that she is no longer entitled to continued possession of the Subject Premises.
The petition is dated May 28, 2013. No predicate notice was served. The petition asserts Petitioner is the owner of the Subject Premises. The petition was verified by counsel for petitioner on May 28, 2013. The verification asserts in part:
I have read the forgoing Petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters therein alleged to be on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.... The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are.... The books and records of Petitioner which have been provided to me.
There are nine paragraphs of allegations in the petition. Only paragraphs two and three are alleged to be upon information and belief.
Petitioner purchased an index number on May 31, 2013. The petition was personally served on June 3, 2013, at 12:16 pm on Respondent at the Subject Premises. The affidavit of service is dated June 4, 2013 and was filed on June 5, 2013, at 9:35 am. The proceeding was originally returnable in Part F on June 12, 2013 at 9:30 am.
On June 10, 2013, Respondent appeared pro se and filed a written answer denying the all legations in the petition. At that time, Respondent was directed to appear in Part C on June 12, 2013, at 9:30 am as the proceeding had been reassigned to Part C. On June 12, 2013, Respondent made an application for an adjournment, because she wished to hire counsel. Respondent also made an oral application for an inspection to address alleged repairs.
Respondent's application was heard on the record at 10:29 am. Respondent asserted that she was entitled to the protection of the rent stabilization laws, based on her review of the rental history for the Subject Premises. Respondent asserted that she had been residing in the Subject Premises for a little over two years. Respondent stated she had filed a complaint with DHCR regarding her status as a regulated tenant.
The petition alleges that the Subject Premises is exempt from rent regulation "... as the premises were high rent vacancy deregulated in 1993 after more than 4 years of temporarily exempt at which time the subject apartment became permanently exempt." Respondent asserted that the rent history showed that the Subject Premises was registered as regulated in 2005 at a rental of $1000 per month. The ...