VI LLC v. Teniya Oyeogbe; "John" "Doe"; "Jane" "Doe" , Respondent(s) (2026)

NYSCEF Doc. No. 1-12

In this holdover proceeding, Petitioner moves by notice of motion to vacate a notice of discontinuance. The motion was adjourned several times and submitted.

Upon review of the paper submitted in support of the instant motion, the motion is denied. This petition was filed in April 2026 and commenced upon service of the papers in August 2025. The assigned court date on the notice of petition was August 18, 2025. On August 29, 2025, petitioner filed a Notice of Discontinuance, which was neither vacated nor addressed with Respondent's counsel. Respondent's counsel subsequently filed a notice of appearance on September 16, 2025. On October 14, 2025, a second Notice of Discontinuance was filed as a two-attorney stipulation. The instant motion is unsupported by an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge and does not address the two Notices of Discontinuance filed in this case.

Furthermore, the discontinuance is without prejudice. There is no evidence that the parties can be "restored to substantially their former positions," as Petitioner asserts. There is no indication that the legal services provider has continued, or will continue, to represent Respondent in this proceeding following the discontinuance. Nor can the court compel the provider to reappear after the matter was discontinued pursuant to a two-attorney stipulation.

The cases cited in the motion papers are distinguishable; in each, the court's exercise of discretion addressed precise and measurable errors, such as an incorrect rent ledger. See, Tatum v. Jack, 82 Misc 3d 1206(A), 2024 NY Slip Op 50244(U)[Civ Ct, Kings Co. 2024]. In Sheridan Drive-In, Inc. v. State, 16 AD2d 400 [4th Dept 1962], the Appellate Division remanded the matter because the State had represented an irrevocable commitment to build a bridge when no firm plan existed. The parties had reached a settlement amount based upon the representation. Here, by contrast, the motion is unsupported by an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge and provides no evidence that movant relied on any representation by Respondent.

Accordingly, Petitioner's notice of motion, seq. no. 1, is denied, and this proceeding is discontinued without prejudice.

This decision/order will be filed to NYSCEF.

This is the decision/order of the court.

Date: August 17, 2026

Hon. Enedina Pilar Sanchez

Housing Court Judge

Enedina Pilar Sanchez, J.