Mohamed Tibta, Respondent, v. 156 21 LLC (2026)

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is by Ammar Omar is dismissed, as he is not aggrieved by the amended order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branch of petitioner's cross-motion seeking to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in civil contempt is denied.

Following a nonjury trial in this illegal lockout summary proceeding (see RPAPL 713 [10]) against landlord, 156 E. 21, LLC, and Ammar Omar, the new tenant in possession, as part of its decision dated October 30, 2024, the Civil Court stated:

"Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that a judgment of possession shall issue in favor of petitioner, MOHAMED TIBTA, as against 156 E 21, LLC and OMAR AMMAR [sic]; and it is further

ORDERED that the warrant shall issue forthwith; and it is further

ORDERED that execution of the warrant is stayed through December 31, 2024 to enable OMAR AMMAR [sic] and his family to relocate with dignity; and it is further

ORDERED that the earliest execution date is January 1, 2025; and it is further

ORDERED that, subject to any further stay of execution of the warrant granted to Omar upon an application for same, petitioner shall be restored to possession on January 1, 2025; and it is further

ORDERED that, should [156 E. 21, LLC] default, petitioner may move to hold [156 E. 21, LLC] in contempt, and petitioner may also seek the assistance of police in enforcement of this order."

A final judgment awarding petitioner possession was entered on October 30, 2024. 156 E. 21, LLC and Mr. Omar appealed to this court, which affirmed the final judgment in a decision and order dated March 20, 2026 (Tibta v 156 E. 21, LLC, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 50695[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2026]).

By order to show cause (OSC) signed by the Civil Court on February 18, 2025, 156 E. 21, LLC and Mr. Omar sought to stay the execution of the warrant of eviction pending this court's determination of the appeal from the final judgment. Execution of the warrant was stayed while the OSC was pending. Petitioner opposed and cross-moved to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in civil and/or criminal contempt for failure to comply with the Civil Court's October 30, 2024 decision. In an affirmation in support of the cross-motion, petitioner's counsel argued, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, that 156 E. 21, LLC had disobeyed the October 30, 2024 decision "by stifling Petitioner's efforts to return to the subject apartment" and that petitioner had been harmed as a result of his displacement from the apartment. 156 E. 21, LLC opposed the cross-motion, asserting, among other things, that it was unable to deliver possession of the apartment to petitioner because Mr. Omar and his family were still living there, as 156 E. 21, LLC's efforts to find Mr. Omar another apartment in the subject building had been unsuccessful.

Following a hearing, by an amended order entered February 28, 2025, the Civil Court granted the branch of petitioner's cross-motion seeking to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in civil contempt and denied the branch of the cross-motion seeking to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in criminal contempt.¹ The court reasoned, in relevant part, "The court ordered restoration of petitioner, Tibta, to Apartment 1C, no later than December 31, 2024 [sic]. [156 E. 21, LLC] was aware of this unequivocal mandate. [156 E. 21, LLC] was on notice that the order could be enforced through a contempt motion. The order has been disobeyed, not necessarily maliciously but indubitably. . . . [156 E. 21, LLC] ousted petitioner and placed Omar unlawfully in possession. [156 E. 21, LLC] is responsible for complying with this court's order."

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (Perrone v Perrone, 229 AD3d 816, 817 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gregg v Lan Zhen Chen, 220 AD3d 695, 696 [2023]). "To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the party to be held in contempt violated a lawful and clear mandate of the court of which that party had knowledge and that such violation resulted in prejudice to the movant's rights" (Esposito v Larig, 241 AD3d 782, 785 [2025]; see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Matter of Bykhovsky v Garanin, 238 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2025]).

Here, petitioner failed to establish that 156 E. 21, LLC violated a clear mandate contained in the October 30, 2024 decision. In so holding, we do not pass upon the propriety of the decision (see Matter of Kanganis v King, 244 AD3d 1124, 1125-1126 [2025]; Bell v White, 55 AD3d 1211, 1215 [2008]; Skripek v Skripek, 239 AD2d 488, 488 [1997]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Porter, 40 Misc 3d 41, 42 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Though it seems that the Civil Court believed that 156 E. 21, LLC was obligated to accomplish petitioner's restoration to the subject apartment by facilitating Mr. Omar's removal from the premises, such an obligation does not appear in the text of the decision. 156 E. 21, LLC did not create any impediment to, or "stifl[e]," petitioner's ability to execute on the warrant of eviction after the initial stay expired on December 31, 2024 until a stay was obtained on February 18, 2025. Moreover, petitioner takes no issue with 156 E. 21, LLC's act of moving for a stay of execution of the warrant of eviction, and has not identified any other conduct by 156 E. 21, LLC that "stifl[ed] Petitioner's efforts to return to the subject apartment." Consequently, the Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the branch of petitioner's cross-motion seeking to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in civil contempt (see Esposito v Larig, 241 AD3d at 785; Silla v Silla, 228 AD3d 969, 971 [2024]; Integrity Real Estate Consultants v Re/Max of NY, Inc., 213 AD3d 815, 821 [2023]; Battinelli v Battinelli, 192 AD3d 957, 960 [2021]; Dalton v Dalton, 164 AD3d 1300, 1302 [2018]; Scaturro v F.J.H. Realty, Inc., 84 Misc 3d 135[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51814[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024]).

Accordingly, the amended order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of petitioner's cross-motion seeking to hold 156 E. 21, LLC in civil contempt is denied.

BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 18, 2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   Separately, by order entered March 18, 2025, the Civil Court granted the branch of 156 E. 21, LLC and Mr. Omar's February 18, 2025 motion seeking an order fixing the amount of an undertaking for an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (6) (Tibta v 156 E 21 LLC, 87 Misc 3d 343 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2025]).