[*1]
WG & Assoc., LLC v Jun Mo Zhu
2008 NY Slip Op 50914(U) [19 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on April 30, 2008
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 30, 2008
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Davis, Heitler, JJ
570800/07.

WG & Associates, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Jun Mo Zhu, Individually, Great Eastern Corp., and Grand Eastern Corp., Respondents-Tenants-Appellants, -and- "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe" Respondents-undertenants.


Tenants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), dated July 16, 2007, after a hearing, which awarded landlord possession in a holdover summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:
Appeal from order (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), dated
July 16, 2007, deemed an appeal from a final judgment (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2007, and so considered, final judgment reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for plenary trial.

As the motion court properly concluded in its initial, unappealed order of March 2, 2007, tenants' motion to vacate the default judgment was supported by a sufficient showing of a reasonable excuse for their short-lived default and a possible meritorious defense to the holdover petition.
Although the evidence presented at the framed-issue hearing directed by the court showed that tenants failed to send landlord proof of insurance coverage in the precise manner prescribed by the parties' commercial lease agreement, the limited proof offered (solely by tenants) at the hearing did not adequately address the central issues involving the materiality and prejudicial [*2]effect of the tenants' lease
deviation, issues which must await a plenary trial (see 1014 Fifth Ave. Realty Corp. v Manhattan Realty Co., 67 NY2d 718 (1986); Fergang Holding Co. v 165 Front St. Rest. Corp., 119 AD2d 496 [1986]). Thus, the court's ultimate decision to "withhold leniency" to tenants and its concomitant issuance of a possessory judgment in landlord's favor went beyond the hearing evidence and were premature.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 30, 2008