REGO PARK VENTURES LLC v. SHANY (2022)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession of a rent-stabilized apartment on the ground that tenant had created and was continuing to create a nuisance by installing cameras in the hallways surrounding the subject premises. Tenant answered, admitting that he had installed the cameras but explaining that they were needed to accommodate his own disabilities. Tenant interposed counterclaims for harassment, discrimination, retaliation, breach of the warranty of habitability, and landlord's alleged breach of a stipulation which was dated June 22, 2017 and entered into by the parties in a prior unrelated proceeding. Landlord moved for, among other things, summary judgment on the petition and to dismiss tenant's counterclaims. By order dated February 28, 2020, the Civil Court, upon denying the branch of landlord's motion seeking summary judgment on the petition, found, for all purposes in this proceeding (see RPAPL 409 [b]; CPLR 3212 [g]), that landlord owns the subject premises, that the premises were properly registered and that tenant installed the cameras. The court further granted the branch of landlord's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing tenant's counterclaim relating to landlord's alleged breach of the June 22, 2017 stipulation but denied the branches of landlord's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remaining counterclaims. Tenant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the order as granted the branch of landlord's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing tenant's counterclaim based on an alleged breach of the stipulation.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly dismissed tenant's counterclaim based on an alleged breach of the June 22, 2017 stipulation as the stipulation was executed in an unrelated prior proceeding and expressly provides that any allegation of breach should be addressed in that proceeding.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.