The Tenants, Edmonde Alexandre and Margarette Marine ("Respondents") in this matter are the tenants of the 284-285 Central Owners Corp ("Petitioner"). Respondents entered into possession of 285 Central Avenue, Apartment C-8, Lawrence, New York ("Premises") subject to a Proprietary Lease with Petitioner, wherein Respondents agreed to pay $719.54 to the Petitioner on the first day of each month as rent.

Petitioner alleged that Respondents defaulted in the payment of rent and maintenance, totaling rent in arrears of $3,453.07.

On July 7, 2006, Petitioner served a Notice of Petition on Respondents. Petitioner claimed that rent had been demanded by service of a 10 Day Notice upon Respondents. Petitioner further claimed that Respondents continued in possession of the Premises without the permission of the landlord after the default in rent payments.

Petitioner requested a Judgment of Possession together with a money judgment in the amount of $3,453.07 plus attorney's fees in the amount of $1,850.00, and a Warrant of Eviction.

On August 9, 2006, Petitioner and Respondents entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. Respondent agreed to pay the sum of $6,022.61 through multiple payments as set forth in the Stipulation. The parties agreed that in the event Respondents failed to make any of the payments agreed upon, Petitioner would be entitled to a Judgment of Possession with a money judgment and the issuance of a Warrant of Eviction without a stay.

Petitioner filed an Affirmation of Non-Compliance with Stipulation with the Court on August 28, 2006. Petitioner alleged that Respondent defaulted in the first set of payments agreed upon in the Stipulation of Settlement. Petitioner claimed that Respondent made payment by two checks, one of which was not honored by the Respondent's bank. Petitioner further alleges that [*2]Respondent failed to replace said payment. As a result of the default, Petitioner requested the Court to issue a Warrant of Eviction without a stay, and a Judgment of Possession with a money judgment in the amount of $5,501.03, which was granted on September 1, 2006.

After issuance of the Warrant of Eviction, Respondents made payment to Petitioner in the amount of $2,989.78, leaving a remaining balance of $2,313.33.

Respondents filed an Order to Show Cause with the Court on November 6, 2006, moving to vacate the Judgment of Possession together with the money judgment and the Warrant of Eviction that were obtained by default. Respondents allege that they are not in default of payments. By Petitioner accepting payment after the Judgment of Possession and Warrant of Eviction were entered, Respondent claims that Petitioner nullified the judgment and reinstated the landlord-tenant relationship.

Pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §749 (1), when a Judgment of Possession is entered in favor of the landlord, the landlord is thereby granted full possession of the premises. In addition, the issuance of a warrant of eviction terminates the landlord-tenant relationship. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §749 (3).

Without a writing or other evidence indicating a clear intent to reinstate the relationship after issuance of the Warrant of Eviction, Petitioner's acceptance of payment from Respondents is insufficient to reinstate the landlord-tenant relationship. New York City Housing Authority v. Torres, 61 AD2d 681, 403 NYS2d 527 (1st Dep't 1978). In addition, the payment of rent in arrears "does not result in automatic vacatur of the warrant." Id. at 684, 530.

When a landlord accepts payment from a tenant after issuance of a Warrant of Eviction and Judgment of Possession, the court must determine whether it was the landlord's intent, upon receiving said payment, to reinstate the landlord-tenant relationship. Without any evidence tending to show that the landlord's intention was to reinstate the tenancy, "mere payment of rent arrears, in and of itself, does not constitute good cause to vacate the warrant of eviction after the issuance of same". 32-05 Newton Ave. Associates v. Hailazopoulos, 168 Misc 2d 125, 127, 645 NYS2d 260, 262 (App. Term 1996). In order to determine the intentions of the landlord, the court must be presented with and examine "competent evidence" that would indicate the landlord had intentions of reinstating the tenancy. J.A.R. Management Corp. v. Foster, 109 Misc 2d 693, 694, 442 NYS2d 723, 724.

In the instant action, there is no existing evidence that would indicate any intention on the part of the landlord to reinstate the tenancy upon acceptance of payment of rent arrears.

Respondents have neither provided a reasonable excuse for default or a meritorious defense.

In view of the foregoing, the respondent's motion is hereby denied. Petitioner may proceed to evict tenants without stay. [*3]

So Ordered:

/s/

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Dated:February 9, 2007

CC:Margarette Marin, pro se

Marc H. Schneider, P.C.

Edmonde Alexandre, respondent