Law Offices of Morris Tuchman (Morris Tuchman of counsel), for appellant. Gutman, Mintz, Baker and Sonnenfeldt, P.C. (Noah Yudelson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lisa Lewis, J.), dated March 8, 2024. The order granted landlord's motion to vacate an order of that court (Cassandra A. Johnson, J.) entered September 18, 2023 in a holdover summary proceeding which granted tenant's prior motion to vacate a money judgment entered December 11, 2020 upon landlord's failure to submit opposition to tenant's prior motion.

ORDERED that the order dated March 8, 2024 is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, the Civil Court (Sally E. Unger, J.), in a written decision dated March 12, 2020, determined that landlord was entitled to $116,666.64, and subsequently awarded a money judgment for that amount, noting that tenant had surrendered possession of the premises. Tenant appealed the decision, which appeal this court dismissed because no appeal lies from a decision. This court specifically declined to deem the appeal to be from the money judgment that was subsequently entered on December 11, 2020 because a monetary award can only be made in a summary proceeding concomitant with an award of possession and the record did not reflect that there had been an award of possession (see FBD Realty, LLC v Rego Park [*2]N.H., Ltd., 73 Misc 3d 131[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50961[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud Dists 2021], citing e.g. 615 Nostrand Ave. Corp. v Roach, 15 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Tenant thereafter moved to vacate the money judgment on that ground, which motion the Civil Court (Cassandra A. Johnson, J.) granted on landlord's default by order entered September 18, 2023. Landlord then moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the September 18, 2023 order, arguing that it had both a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose tenant's motion to vacate the money judgment, in that it was never served with the motion, and a meritorious defense, in that the money judgment was valid. The motion was opposed and, by order dated March 8, 2024, the Civil Court (Lisa Lewis, J.) granted landlord's motion to vacate the September 18, 2023 order.

It is undisputed that tenant served the notice of motion to vacate the money judgment upon landlord's debt collections attorney, as opposed to landlord's counsel in this holdover proceeding. Consequently, the Civil Court was deprived of jurisdiction to hear tenant's motion to vacate the money judgment and render its September 18, 2023 order (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; Young v City of New York, 164 AD3d 711, 713 [2018]). Consequently, we are constrained to affirm the March 8, 2024 order vacating the September 18, 2023 order, as the September 18, 2023 order was a nullity (see Crown Waterproofing, Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 99 AD3d 964, 965 [2012]), while acknowledging that the effect of vacating the September 18, 2023 order is to reinstate a money judgment which appears to have been improperly entered without a concomitant award of possession.

Accordingly, the order dated March 8, 2024 is affirmed.

BUGGS, J.P., OTTLEY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.