| 332-4 W. 47th St. Assoc., L.P. v Buxo |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 51590(U) [87 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on October 10, 2025 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Tenants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Yekaterina Blinova, J.), dated November 20, 2024, which denied their posteviction motion to be restored to possession in a holdover summary proceeding.
Per Curiam.
Order (Yekaterina Blinova, J.), dated November 20, 2024, affirmed, without costs.
We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of tenants' application for posteviction relief in this 2019 holdover proceeding. Tenants' challenge to the final judgment is precluded by our prior orders dismissing their appeal from that judgment as untimely (332-4 W. 47th St. Assoc., LP v Buxo, 81 Misc 3d 143[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50162[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2024]; 332-4 W. 47th St. Assoc., LP v Buxo, 2022 NY Slip Op 66396[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]; see Katz Park Ave. Corp. v Jagger, 98 AD3d 921 [2012]). In addition, tenants' lease agreement for the unregulated apartment expired more than six years ago, they have no right to any continued possession, and they claim that the apartment is "unfit for human habitation." Under the circumstances, and in the absence of good cause shown (see RPAPL 749 [3]), tenants' application to be restored to possession was properly denied (see City of New York v 130/40 Essex St. Dev. Corp., 302 AD2d 292 [2003]; New York Hous. Auth. v Torres, 61 AD2d 681 [1978]; New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC v Santiago, 85 Misc 3d 131[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50201[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2025]).
We have examined tenants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.