Summary
holding that "occupant's succession-rights defense cannot be entertained in this [licensee] summary proceeding," as DHCR has exclusive jurisdiction over that claim
Summary of this case from The Trs. of Columbia Univ. of N.Y. v. MontgomeryOpinion
2010-2478 RI C
01-13-2012
St. Marks Place Housing Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Leroy Moultrie, Appellant.
PRESENT: : , J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Marina Mundy, J.), entered August 5, 2010. The final judgment, entered pursuant to an order of the same court granting landlord's motion for summary judgment, awarded landlord possession in a licensee summary proceeding.
ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this licensee summary proceeding (RPAPL 713 [5]), occupant seeks to defend on the ground that he has succession rights to the subject State-assisted Mitchell-Lama apartment. However, since "the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine remaining-family-member claims in State-assisted Mitchell-Lama housing" (Starrett City, Inc. v Smith, 25 Misc 3d 42, 44-45 [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see Rochdale Vil., Inc. v Goode, 16 Misc 3d 49, 52 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; cf. Bedford Gardens Co., LP v Jacobowitz, 29 AD3d 501 [2006]), occupant's succession-rights defense cannot be entertained in this summary proceeding. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
Golia, J.P., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.