| Jones v MHANY 2012 HDFC |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 50485(U) [47 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on March 26, 2015 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, Queens County (John S. Lansden, J.), entered August 29, 2013. The order granted a motion by MHANY 2012 HDFC for an order permitting it to remove petitioner's personal belongings to a secure location in order to facilitate repairs in the subject building, and for other, related relief.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner (tenant) commenced this Housing Part proceeding against Allen Affordable HDFC in June 2013, seeking to compel the correction of violations pursuant to a January 2012 vacate order. As explained by the Civil Court in the order appealed from, the building in which tenant resides had been selected for the Neighborhood Redevelopment Program in 2001, at which time all the residents had been informed that they would be temporarily relocated and would be returned to their apartments upon the completion of the renovations. By the end of 2005, tenant was the only resident that had not relocated.
Shortly after this proceeding was commenced, the deed to the subject building was transferred, and the court permitted the new owner, MHANY 2012 HDFC (MHANY), to be substituted for Allen Affordable HDFC as respondent. MHANY then moved for an order permitting it to remove tenant's personal belongings to a secure location, requiring tenant to be present when they were moved, and granting immunity to landlord in the event tenant was not present at the relocation. The Civil Court granted MHANY's motion to the extent of providing that MHANY could temporarily relocate tenant's possessions, at MHANY's expense, and further imposed conditions upon MHANY regarding the transfer and storage of tenant's possessions, and the restoration of tenant and his possessions to the subject apartment once the rehabilitation was completed. Tenant appeals.
In light of the circumstances presented, we find that the Civil Court's order was not an improvident exercise of its discretion (see CCA 110 [c]). To the extent that tenant argues that [*2]the transfer of the property to MHANY was improper, tenant has not made a sufficient showing to support such a contention.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.