Norma Machado, As Executor of Richard Machado's Estate, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Maria Del Mar Machado, Respondent-Appellant. (2025)

Per Curiam.

Orders (Travis J. Arrindell, J.), dated, respectively, June 29, 2023 and April 11, 2024, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

Petitioner, the owner of a Fifth Avenue condominium apartment, commenced this licensee holdover proceeding seeking to evict respondent, his adult daughter, from the premises. On this appeal from an order granting petitioner summary judgment of possession, respondent contends that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to evict her as a licensee due to her familial relationship with petitioner. This argument is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Estreich v Jewish Home Lifecare, 178 AD3d 543, 544-545 [2019]), and, in any event, is without merit. "The RPAPL contains no language exempting individuals with some familial relationship to a petitioner from eviction as licensees" (Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v Chimsanthia, 74 Misc 3d 126[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50035[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]), particularly under the present circumstances (see Aloni v Oliver, 70 Misc 3d 137[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50069[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2021]; Heckman v Heckman, 55 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]).

Renewal was properly denied since the purportedly new material offered by respondent was available to her at the time of her original motion (see Byrne v Ryder Truck Rental, 292 AD2d 326, 327 [2002]). Moreover, the ostensibly new material would not have changed Civil Court's prior decision to grant petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction (Solis v 340 W. 12th Realty LLC, 226 AD3d 449, 450 [2024]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Caro, 82 AD3d 880, 882 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 16, 2025