Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Prevails on Summary Judgment in a Holdover Case in a Mitchell Lama
“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s latest victory, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client. The Respondent was improperly residing in a unit, contending that he had succession rights to the unit. The problem is that in a Mitchell-Lama, only HPD can determine whether a resident has succession rights. HPD determined that the Respondent had no right to succeed to the unit he resided in and issued a certificate of eviction. Since HPD is an administrative body, the only way to challenge its decision is by an Article 78 proceeding, which holds a slim four-month statute of limitations. The Respondent failed to appeal the decision by HPD in the requisite time period. Absent a challenge to the Certificate of Eviction, summary judgment is essentially automatic. Accordingly, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved for summary judgment at this very point. During argument on the motion, the Respondent requested that his attorneys be relieved in their role as counsel and that the case be stayed. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued against any stay on the proceedings, given the prejudicial effect it would have on their client. The court agreed and warned the Respondent that it was not wise to fight a heavyweight champion in your first match, signaling Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s prowess in the landlord-tenant world. The Respondent nonetheless requested to argue the motion. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. swiftly dispatched all the Respondent’s arguments and proved to the court that the rules of the Mitchell-Lama govern. The court agreed with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s argument, rendering a decision in favor of their client and a judgment of possession against the Respondent.
Dov A Treiman and Caleb J. Brown of the Landlord-Tenant Department of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., represented the client.