[*1]
Royal Terrace Assoc., LP v Jewish Assoc. for Servs. for the Aged
2005 NY Slip Op 50067(U)
Decided on January 26, 2005
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on January 26, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570278/04

ROYAL TERRACE ASSOCIATES, LP, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

JEWISH ASSOC. FOR SERVICES FOR THE AGED, AS GUARDIAN FOR MICHAEL PEACO, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.


Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, dated April 22, 2004 (Brenda S. Spears, J.) which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of possession entered on default in a holdover summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:

Order dated April 22, 2004 (Brenda S. Spears, J.) reversed, without costs, tenant's motion to vacate the default judgment is granted, and the proceeding is remanded to Civil Court for immediate trial.

Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without explanation, tenant's motion to vacate the default possessory judgment. Tenant moved expeditiously (within two weeks) for vacatur relief, and satisfactorily showed, through the affidavit of his court-appointed guardian, that their mutual failure to appear for trial was due to the guardian's failure to diary the correct adjourned date (see Cardinale v Woolworth's, Inc., 304 AD2d 351 [2003]). Tenant also demonstrated the possible existence of a meritorious defense to [*2]the landlord's holdover petition, a petition based upon serious, yet unparticularized allegations concerning the "disorderly" conduct of tenant's visitors. Public policy favors a determination of controversies on their merits (see Picinic v Seatrain Lines, Inc., 117 AD2d 504, 508 [1986]), particularly in housing matters where a forfeiture of shelter is implicated.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: January 26, 2005