PPC LLC v. Rasheem Johnson, Respondent(s)-Tenant(s). (2026)

After trial, the decision and order is as follows:

In this nonpayment proceeding, PPC RESIDENTIAL LLC, ("petitioner") sought $11,550 in rent for Apartment 7E, 1595 Metropolitan Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10462 ("subject premises") from respondent RASHEEM  ¹ JOHNSON ("respondent") for the months of September 1, 2024 to April 1, 2025. The petition was amended at trial to include rent through March 2026, in the total amount of $30,046.16.

The petition pleads in pertinent part:

2. Respondent(s) RASHEEN [sic] JOHNSON is/are the tenant(s) in possession of said premises pursuant to a(n) WRITTEN lease agreement made heretofore for a term from 06/01/2024 to 6/30/2025 wherein respondents promised to pay to landlord or landord(s) predecessor as rent $1,650.00 each month . . .

7. THE APARTMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE NYC RENT CONTROL LAW OR RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969 AS AMENDED BECAUSE THE APARTMENT IS LOCATED IN A BUILDNG CONVERTED TO A CONDOMINIUM AND THE APARTMENT WAS RENTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN.

Respondent, pro se, answered the petition on June 20, 2025, alleging: conditions and that she receives assistance from HRA (NYSCEF No. 4) Respondent's answer was amended on consent (NYSCEF No. 8, 9) to assert failure of proper service; improper name of respondent; no prior demand for rent; conditions in the apartment; that the petition does not describe the apartment; that the apartment is illegal; a general denial; that respondent receives rental assistance from HRA. Respondent interposed a counterclaim for "rent abatement for services not provided" in the amount of $13,300.00. (NYSCEF No. 8)

The central issue of this case involves the tenant's 7-month relocation from the subject premises, 1595 Metropolitan Avenue, Apartment 7E, to 1563 Metropolitan Avenue Apartment 7A (hereafter, the "temporary apartment"), necessitated by the condominium's need for roof repair. Initially, the tenant argued that petitioner perpetrated a fraud  ² by failing to advise her of the planned relocation during her lease term. As the trial progressed over 4 months, respondent's primary argument was to dismiss for a defective petition. Respondent argued that she is a rent stabilized tenant due to a J-51 tax benefit for the subject premises and therefore the rent regulatory status as plead was incorrect.³ Respondent's amended pro se answer did not specify these details; it broadly raised a defect stating that the petition "does not describe the apartment"; and that "the apartment is illegal".

Trial

The Trial took place on December 14, 2025, January 9, 2026 and March 6, 2026.⁴ The court did not consider unauthorized filings uploaded to NYSCEF after the close of the record on March 6, 2026.

Petitioner's prima facie case

Petitioner called Jorge Loarte as a witness. He is employed as a logistics associate for PPC Residential. He testified that respondent was served with a rent demand. After respondent did not satisfy rent arrears, this proceeding commenced. On cross-examination, respondent established that the witness did not know the rent regulatory status of the apartment.

Respondent's case

Respondent Rasheem Johnson testified that she relocated from Georgia to the subject premises in New York in 2024. After she selected the subject premises to rent, she learned that the building intended to relocate the tenants for roof repairs. She spoke to building representatives Frank Zacara, a supervisor, Shakina Lorcy, a project manager, and Jessica, an attorney for management. She asked if she could begin the lease when the repairs were done. Management refused her request; instead, they showed her relocation apartments which were unacceptable, next to the incinerator room, on a lower floor, and one which was dark and had roaches. Under duress due to work and relocation, she signed the lease for the subject premises and relocated to the temporary apartment. In July and August 2024, she slept on an air mattress.

Respondent emphasized that petitioner must have been aware of a permit for roof work filed with the Department of Buildings in 2023, prior to her signing the lease but did not tell her up front. Petitioner also "hid" the fact of receiving a J-51 tax benefit for this unit, (referencing Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 6). Respondent seeks a 100 % rent abatement for the 7 months she was relocated due to building roof work.

On cross-examination, respondent acknowledged that she signed an initial and renewal lease for the subject premises, and that the building offered to pay her moving expenses.

Petitioner's rebuttal case.

Petitioner's Director of Leasing, Vera Antonetti, testified on rebuttal. She has been the Assistant Director of Leasing since September 2025; prior thereto, she was as a renting associate at PPC. She testified that respondent was shown 3 relocation apartments. Petitioner's Exhibit P7, an August 7, 2024 email from Antonetti to Chrystal McGill, confirms the addresses of the relocation apartments offered to respondent. The witness testified that the

offered units that were in good condition and included utilities. Petitioner submitted exhibits P8-P11 floor plans for respondent's apartment and other "similar" apartments. The apartments were similar in condition, rent and size as reflected in floor plans and HPD records, submitted as exhibits:

P8 1595 Metropolitan Avenue floorplan, 7E, subject premises

P9, 1563 Metropolitan Avenue floorplan, 7A temporary apartment

P 10, 20 Metropolitan Oval floorplan, 9E

P 11, 1690 Metropolitan Avenue floorplan, MD

P 12, 1553 Union Port Road floorplan

P 13 print out of violations subject premises

P 14 print out of violations temporary apartment

P 15 print out of violations 1553 Unionport

P 16 print out of violations 1690 Metropolitan Avenue

P 17 print out of violations 20 Metropolitan Oval.

Chrystal McGill also testified on rebuttal. She is the Director of Legal and Tenant Services for petitioner. She submitted a ledger establishing the rent owed to be $30,046.16. She testified that this is a fair market condominium unit. She did not have detail in court about the rent history or regulatory status of the unit.

Closing argument

At the close of petitioner's rebuttal, the parties opted to present closing arguments rather than submit post-trial memoranda.

Respondent argued that petitioner engaged in illegal practices by, initially, failing to disclose that she would need to relocate; and, by failing to recognize respondent as a rent stabilized tenant based on the petitioner's receipt of a J-51 tax benefit.

Petitioner argued it met its prima facie burden of proof of rent due, and that respondent did not timely raise her rent regulatory argument(s); and that even if she had, she could not prevail as the subject premises is deregulated as it is a rental in a condominium unit.

Discussion

Petitioner proved elements of its prima facie case, including ownership, that the rent was demanded, that it is properly registered at HPD and that the tenant is obligated to pay rent under her lease (P4, P5). However, petitioner did not prove its entitlement to rent for the 7-month relocation period.

It is undisputed that petitioner required respondent to relocate for a period of 7 months occurring in June 2024, at or around the commencement of the lease. Respondent's lease for the subject premises provides in paragraph 4, that " . . . [r]ent shall be payable as of the beginning of the Term unless Landlord is unable to give possession. Rent shall then be payable as of the date possession is available."

In her amended answer, respondent raised conditions and interposed a counterclaim seeking a 100% rent abatement for services not provided. The court confirms the pleadings to the proof under CPLR § 3025(c) to find that the tenant was constructively evicted from the subject premises for 7 months. Constructive eviction can result in a 100% rent abatement where the tenant abandoned possession, as she was required to do, by the condominium. Minjak Co. v Randolph, 140 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 1988] On this record, petitioner failed to show that respondent was obligated to pay rent for the temporary apartment. No relocation, license or lease agreement for the temporary apartment was submitted at trial. Nor did the rent demand or pleadings reflect a demand for rent for the temporary apartment.

Respondent's amended answer raised "that the petition does not describe the apartment" and that "the apartment is illegal". At trial, respondent argued that the apartment was subject to rent stabilization by virtue of petitioner receiving J-51 tax benefits, however, no certified documents from the Department of Housing and Preservation and Development or Department of Finance as to the relevant J-51 benefit, or other proof, were presented by respondent in support of this claim. Moreover, respondent advised the court that that she filed a rent overcharge complaint at DHCR and therefore appears to have chosen her forum for status and rent overcharge claims. See, Collazo v Netherland Property Assets LLC, 35 NY3d 987 (2020)

Therefore, is therefore

ORDERED, that respondent is entitled to a 100% rent abatement for 7 months in the amount of $11,550, and therefore, a judgment is the amount of $18,496.16 is granted against, RASHEEM JOHNSON for petitioner;

ORDERED, Issuance of the warrant forthwith, execution stayed until July 15, 2026 for respondent to pay $18,496.16, as all rent owed through March 2026, plus April, May, June and July 2026 rent;

ORDRED, that the parties shall retrieve their trial exhibits from the court within 30 days of this decision.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: June 30, 2026

Bronx, New York

FOOTNOTES

1.   The pleadings were amended to correct the spelling of respondent's first name to RASHEEM.

2.   The housing court has limited jurisdiction over: proceedings to recover possession of real property; the collection of rent; special proceedings for rent deposit; and to remedy conditions dangerous to life, health or safety. NY City Civil Court Act § 204. Respondent's claims of fraudulent inducement, if any, should be resolved in a court with the equitable jurisdiction to grant such relief. See Haberman v Wright, 121 AD2d 187 (1st Dept 1986)

3.   The tenant represents that she filed a rent overcharge complaint at the DHCR.

4.   The following exhibits were introduced at trial:Petitioner's 1, certified copy of the deedPetitioner's 2, Multiple Dwelling RegistrationPetitioner's 3, DHCR registrationPetitioner's 4, Respondent's initial leasePetitioner's 5, Respondent's renewal leasePetitioner's 6, rent ledger pertaining to the unitPetitioner's 7, emailPetitioner's 8, layout of 1595 Metropolitan Avenue, Apt. 7EPetitioner's 9, layout of 1563 Avenue A, Apt. 7APetitioner's 10, layout of 20 Metropolitan Oval, Apt. 90Petitioner's 11, layout of 1690 Metropolitan Avenue, Apt. MDPetitioner's 12, layout of 1553 Unionport RoadPetitioner's 13, HPD violations, 1595 Metropolitan Avenue, Apt. 7EPetitioner's 14, HPD violations, 1563 Metropolitan Avenue, Apt. 7APetitioner's 15, HPD violations, 1553 Unionport Road, Apt 4EPetitioner's 16, HPD violations,1690 Metropolitan Avenue, Apt MDPetitioner's 17, HPD violations, 20 Metropolitan Oval, Apt. 9EPetitioner's 18, updated ledgerRespondent's 1, employment letter of May 17, 2024

Elizabeth Donoghue, J.