| Jakab v Wagenhoffer |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 52237(U) [13 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on November 2, 2006 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael J. Pinckney, J.), entered September 14, 2005. The order granted tenant's motion for a stay of the warrant of eviction only to the extent of staying execution through December 31, 2005.
Appeal dismissed.
In this holdover summary proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in November 2004 that provided, inter alia, that the warrant of eviction would issue forthwith but that execution would be stayed for a certain period to permit landlord
to make repairs to a stairway so that tenant, who is disabled, could negotiate it with her belongings in order to move out of the premises. The stipulation further provided that if landlord failed to make the necessary repairs, the "time to vacate is extended." In July 2005, tenant applied for a further stay of execution of the warrant, alleging that there were remaining problems with the stairway. Tenant asked that the court send an inspector from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) to inspect the stairway and determine if it was safe, and that the court stay execution of the warrant until such a determination was made. The Housing Court ordered an inspection, and, on September 12, 2005, the HPD inspector reported that all the banisters had been secured as of the time of the inspection. Accordingly, the court [*2]extended the stay only until December 31, 2005 for tenant to vacate.
Since tenant received the relief for which she applied, she is not aggrieved by the court's order (CPLR 5511; see Miller v Miller, 98 AD2d 987 [1983]). To the extent that tenant argues on appeal that the underlying stipulation of settlement should be vacated and/or the warrant permanently stayed for good cause shown pursuant to RPAPL 749 (3), these arguments are not properly before the court, as tenant failed to raise them below, and, in any event, are meritless, as no grounds are stated upon
which such relief could be granted (see generally Jones v Allen, 185 Misc 2d 443 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2000]).
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 02, 2006