Opinion
No. 571020/23
11-22-2023
MHK Associates, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v. George Trapp, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, J.
PER CURIAM.
Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Evon M. Asforis, J.), dated July 5, 2023, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition, for leave to conduct discovery with respect to the counterclaims and to consolidate this proceeding with another holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Evon M. Asforis, J.), dated July 5, 2023, affirmed, with $10 costs.
This holdover proceeding, premised upon tenant's failure to sign a renewal lease, is not subject to summary dismissal. The evidentiary proof submitted by tenant failed to establish the absence of material issues of fact with respect to the validity of the lease renewal offer tendered by landlord, including whether the renewal was "at the legal regulated rent permitted for such renewal lease and otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the expiring lease" (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[a]).
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, as "not narrowly and carefully tailored," tenant's overbroad discovery request with respect to the counterclaims, which sought extensive records about the subject building, the adjoining building, other tenants, vendors, etc. (see Kantor v Kaye, 114 A.D.2d 782 [1985]; see also Crandall v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 206 A.D.3d 552 [2022]; New York Univ. v Farkas, 121 Misc.2d 643 [Civ Ct, NY County 1983]). We also find no reason to disturb the court's sound exercise of its discretion in denying consolidation of this case with another proceeding involving another tenant and lease in the building, with different facts and a different defense to the nonrenewal allegation (see McGinty v Structure-Tone, 140 A.D.3d 465 [2016]; H. H. Robertson Co. v New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 524 [1990]).