| Ocean Props., LLC v Sierra |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50187(U) [88 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on January 16, 2026 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Slochowsky & Slochowsky (Stacie B. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Brooklyn Legal Services (Irene Ginsberg of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (David A. Harris, J.), dated September 3, 2024. The order denied petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment in a licensee summary proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
The tenant of the subject rent-stabilized apartment, now deceased, was given, in a rider to her vacancy lease, a "preferential rent" in accordance with a stipulation settling a 2005 holdover proceeding by petitioner to obtain possession of her prior rent-controlled apartment. Petitioner commenced this licensee summary proceeding (RPAPL 713 [7]) to obtain possession of the subject apartment from occupant, who answered and asserted in her first affirmative defense that she is the daughter of the deceased tenant and a successor-in-interest to her mother's tenancy, and therefore "entitled to possession of the subject premises on the same terms as the primary leaseholder pursuant to § 2523.5 (b) (1) of the Rent Stabilization Code." Petitioner moved for partial summary judgment seeking to strike "so much of the first Defense . . . as implies that respondent is entitled to a tenancy at the same reduced rent as was being paid by her predecessor" (emphasis added). By order dated September 3, 2024, the Civil Court (David A. Harris, J.) denied the motion on the merits.
Petitioner has not argued that this affirmative defense has no merit or that it should be dismissed as a matter of law. Rather, petitioner's motion seeks to strike an implication allegedly found within the wording of the affirmative defense, which is not relief susceptible to summary judgment or even partial summary judgment treatment. Whether the scope of occupant's claim that she is entitled to a renewal lease "on the same terms as the primary leaseholder" (see Rent [*2]Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5 [a], [b] [1]) includes entitlement to her mother's preferential rent, in light of the subsequent amendment to Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26—511 (c) (14), is not properly before the court on this motion. Thus, we affirm the denial of petitioner's motion, albeit without reaching the merits.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER: