| Cardenas v 74-78 Post Ave. Hgts. Assoc. LLC |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 51286(U) [77 Misc 3d 136(A)] |
| Decided on December 20, 2022 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Respondents 74-78 Post Avenue Heights Associates LLC, Santos Santana and George Huang appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered June 14, 2022, which denied their motion to dismiss petitioner's amended petition in a Housing Part (HP) proceeding.
Per Curiam.
Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered June 14, 2022, affirmed, without costs.
Although the portion of respondents-landlords' motion seeking dismissal did not identify the particular subdivision of CPLR 3211(a) relied upon, we treat it as one directed to the sufficiency of the pleadings (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). As such, the motion was properly denied.
Taking the allegations as true and giving petitioner-tenant the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the amended petition in this HP proceeding states a cause of action for relief (see CCA 110[a]), and is essentially unchallenged.
The gist of landlords' arguments on appeal is that Civil Court is not authorized to order it to pay relocation costs directly to tenant in an HP proceeding. That item of damages, however, is not sought in the petition. While the petition makes general reference to relocation costs and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-305 [HPD entitled to reimbursement of [*2]relocation expenses from building owner]), it does not include any demand for reimbursement of relocation costs to tenant directly from landlord. Thus the issue is not properly before us on this appeal.
All concur
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Clerk of the Court