Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
OCEAN PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant, v. Madeline SIERRA, Respondent, “John Doe” and “Jane Doe”, Undertenants.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
The tenant of the subject rent-stabilized apartment, now deceased, was given, in a rider to her vacancy lease, a “preferential rent” in accordance with a stipulation settling a 2005 holdover proceeding by petitioner to obtain possession of her prior rent-controlled apartment. Petitioner commenced this licensee summary proceeding (RPAPL 713 [7]) to obtain possession of the subject apartment from occupant, who answered and asserted in her first affirmative defense that she is the daughter of the deceased tenant and a successor-in-interest to her mother's tenancy, and therefore “entitled to possession of the subject premises on the same terms as the primary leaseholder pursuant to § 2523.5 (b) (1) of the Rent Stabilization Code.” Petitioner moved for partial summary judgment seeking to strike “so much of the first Defense ․ as implies that respondent is entitled to a tenancy at the same reduced rent as was being paid by her predecessor” (emphasis added). By order dated September 3, 2024, the Civil Court (David A. Harris, J.) denied the motion on the merits.
Petitioner has not argued that this affirmative defense has no merit or that it should be dismissed as a matter of law. Rather, petitioner's motion seeks to strike an implication allegedly found within the wording of the affirmative defense, which is not relief susceptible to summary judgment or even partial summary judgment treatment. Whether the scope of occupant's claim that she is entitled to a renewal lease “on the same terms as the primary leaseholder” (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5 [a], [b] [1]) includes entitlement to her mother's preferential rent, in light of the subsequent amendment to Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26—511 (c) (14), is not properly before the court on this motion. Thus, we affirm the denial of petitioner's motion, albeit without reaching the merits.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2024-1213 K C
Decided: January 16, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)