Opinion
December 2, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
Injunctive relief is warranted in view of the documentary evidence showing a likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits of her claim of rent overcharge based on an illusory tenancy and defendant's failure to give her notice of first fair market rent, and the irreparable harm that would be caused to plaintiff should defendant's nonpayment proceeding in Civil Court be determined before plaintiff's overcharge complaint before DHCR.
The court was within its discretion in removing and consolidating the action with the nonpayment proceeding "in the interest of the proper administration of justice" (Atherton v 21 E. 92nd St. Corp., 149 A.D.2d 354, 355), and staying the consolidated action pending the DHCR proceeding to prevent the ultimate "forfeiture of the tenants' possessory interest before a ruling is rendered by the administrative agency" (Woltall Apts. v Byrd, NYLJ, Apr. 2, 1993, at 26, col 3 [Civ Ct, N Y County]). The court's determination of the amount of use and occupancy properly considered the circumstances of the case and adequately protected defendant's rights.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.