LLC v. BERNARD PELZER (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of respondent's order to show cause (Seq. 8) and any other relief as the court may find appropriate:

Papers Numbered

Order to Show Cause (Seq. 8) with affidavits and exhibits 1 (NYSCEF #58)

Affirmation in Opposition and exhibits 2 (NYSCEF #59-61)

This is a non-payment proceeding. The court would describe it as a run-of-the-mill nonpayment. However, the proceeding has begun to twist itself into the form of something out of Dr. Basma Abdel Aziz's 2013 novel The Queue (Basma Abdel Aziz, The Queue [Melville House 2016]). As of September 2026, there is an undisputed amount of $14,843.20 outstanding. A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) has been appointed for the respondent since November 2025 (NYSCEF #54). The GAL has been working with DSS (Department of Social Services) — both its branches of RAU (Rental Assistance Unit) and APS (Adult Protective Services) — to obtain funds to satisfy the judgment in this 2023 non-payment. The GAL explained to the court that the Emergency Assistance Grant was submitted in June 2026 and that in July 2026, the request for financial management was also fully submitted.

In early June 2026, pursuant to CCA § 110(d), the court joined APS to this proceeding (NYSCEF #62). On the return date, when the court questioned appearing counsel as to status of the emergency grants, counsel responded that he was only there to answer as to APS, that RAU was a different branch, and that counsel could not answer questions of that branch of DSS. The court then explicitly joined HRA (NYSCEF # 65), the branch of DSS dealing with emergency grants and financial management, which the APS counsel told the court was represented by someone else in the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA). The court has now joined both APS and RAU as co-respondents. Inexplicably, at this appearance, respondent-DSS only sent one attorney who was able to provide information, if not answers, to questions the court had about both units. It makes the court question the sincerity of the agency's stated separation of branches and tasks. Respondent-DSS had no new information since the court adjourned this proceeding from August 19, 2026 to September 2, 2026.

All applications remain "pending." Counsel was able to provide a rough timeline of the applications in that emergency grants generally took "one to four months" and that financial management applications could take "one to ten months." Counsel was unable to give specific information about this respondent's applications. Without any disrespect to appearing counsel, who conducted himself professionally and provided what little information was available, the court may, in future CCA § 110(d) orders, consider ordering supervisors, deputy commissioners or commissioners to appear personally to explain the disconnect between legislative mandate for summary proceedings and the bureaucratic mechanisms that allow (or in this instance disallow) those proceedings to retain some semblance of their summary nature. Counsel for DSS described a chaotic scene where the agency uses "outdated technology" and where applications disappear into bureaucratic black holes. Without information as to how DSS operates, the court is unable to make reasonably educated predictions as to timelines for extensions, which is essential for the fair adjudication of orders to show cause.

After argument and taking into account the above listed papers, the court must deny the motion for lack of good cause shown. This motion has been pending since early April 2026. No movement on the applications has been presented. The GAL, understandably, is frustrated with all branches of DSS, as she is unable to receive any other updated information.

However, in the interest of justice, the court stays the execution of the warrant of eviction to September 30, 2026 for respondents to pay the outstanding balance. Upon payment, judgment is satisfied and the warrant will automatically vacate. Upon default all stays are lifted, and the warrant may execute after service of the marshal's notice with reasonably contemporaneous email notification to the GAL. The petitioner is also ordered to submit an attorney affirmation stating that they contacted the GAL with the service of the marshal's notice prior to execution. The court has considered in this discretionary exercise the health status of the respondents — including the appointment of the GAL, the longevity of the proceeding in that this is a 2023 index number, the relatively modest amount owed, the financial hardship suffered by the petitioner, that both the GAL and respondents have acted in good faith to attempt to get the aid required, the excessive administrative delay in both the processing of the requested relief and administrative intake by the various City agencies, and the arguments made on the record. APS must be informed of any scheduled eviction prior to its execution. This constitutes the decision/order of the court.

Dated: September 4, 2026

Sergio Jimenez, JHC

Sergio Jimenez, J.