MEC v. Reggie Smalls, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Respondents-Tenants-Undertenants. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.), dated March 2, 2026, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying landlord's motion to renew, brought nearly two years after Civil Court's September 2023 order dismissing the nonpayment petition and more than one year after our decision (East Harlem MEC Parcel C, L.P. v Smalls, 82 Misc 3d 127[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50317[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2024]) affirming that order (see Tishman Constr. Corp. of NY v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374 [2001]). Landlord failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to present the purported new information on the prior motion (see Ok Sun Chong v Scheelje, 218 AD3d 691 [2023]). In any event, the new information, an ex parte unsworn letter from the Department of Buildings, dated August 26, 2025, would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Seegopaul v MTA Bus Co., 210 AD3d 715, 716 [2022], lv dismissed 39 NY3d 1127 [2023]), since it constitutes neither a formal agency opinion or a definitive final agency determination that is entitled to deference (see New York City Educ. Constr. Fund v Verizon NY Inc., 36 Misc 3d 1201[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51142[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2012], affd 114 AD3d 529 [2014]).

We have considered landlord's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 20, 2026