[*1]
CG Ltd. Partnership v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 51306(U) [20 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on June 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 30, 2008
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, J.
570147/07

CG Limited Partnership, Petitioner-Landlord- Appellant-Cross-Respondent, ,

against

Kingsbridge Heights Care Center, Inc., Respondent-Tenant- Respondent-Cross-Appellant.


Landlord, as limited by its brief, appeals from two final judgments of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered March 13, 2007 and amended March 20, 2007, which, upon granting landlord's motion for a directed verdict, awarded possession to landlord and fixed use and occupancy at $53,000 per month in consolidated commercial holdover proceedings. Tenant cross-appeals from so much of the aforesaid final judgments as awarded possession to landlord.


Per Curiam.

Final judgments (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered March 13, 2007 and amended March 20, 2007, affirmed, with $25 costs to landlord. Execution of the warrants of eviction is stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Landlord was properly awarded possession of the demised commercial premises where the terms of tenant's separate leaseholds expired in May 2004, and no cognizable defense to the holdover petitions was presented by tenant. The trial evidence supported the authority of landlord's general partner to act on behalf of landlord to terminate the ensuing month-to-month tenancies and to commence the underlying proceedings, and tenant had no standing to raise any collateral issues not within the limited jurisdiction of RPAPL Article 7 summary proceedings. In affirming the possessory judgments, we note that tenant, having been granted a six-month stay of execution of the warrants of eviction, is not entitled to a further stay (see 64B Venture v American Realty Co., 179 AD2d 374 [1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 756 [1992]).

We have considered and rejected the parties' remaining arguments.

This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Decision Date: June 30, 2008