Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Secures Judgment of Possession in Licensee Holdover Proceeding
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully obtained a judgment of possession on behalf of a homeowner seeking to remove a licensee from her single-family home after the licensee refused to vacate the property following the revocation of his permission to reside there.
The homeowner originally permitted the licensee to live in the home but later decided that she no longer wished to permit his occupancy. Despite the revocation of his permission, the licensee refused to leave and asserted that he was entitled to monetary compensation from the homeowner.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. commenced a holdover proceeding in Housing Court and attached an affirmation in which the licensee expressly admitted that he was not, and had never been, a tenant of the homeowner. By securing this admission at the outset, the firm prevented the licensee from later attempting to characterize himself as a tenant or asserting defenses based upon a landlord-tenant relationship.
The firm provided the licensee with additional time to file an Answer and obtained an agreement from his attorneys to waive any traverse defenses. Rather than filing an Answer, however, the licensee moved to stay the proceeding based upon his purported claims for money. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. opposed the motion, arguing that the alleged monetary claims had no bearing on the holdover proceeding and could not prevent the homeowner from obtaining possession of her property. The licensee remained free to pursue any purported monetary claims in a separate plenary action.
The Court agreed with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and denied the motion to stay, allowing the holdover proceeding to continue.
Simultaneously, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the homeowner had properly revoked the licensee’s right to occupy the property and that the licensee had failed to assert any defenses in the proceeding. In opposition, the licensee again relied upon his purported monetary claims rather than asserting a defense to the homeowner’s claim for possession.
During oral argument, the Court questioned why Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had moved for summary judgment before the issue was formally joined by an Answer. The firm explained that the licensee had been given two opportunities, pursuant to stipulations, to file an Answer but failed to do so. The firm further argued that the CPLR permits a court to consider a motion for summary judgment even where an Answer has not been filed.
The Court agreed, finding the licensee’s failure to file an Answer inexcusable and determining that the homeowner was entitled to possession of the property. The Court issued a judgment of possession, giving the homeowner the right to proceed with the eviction and regain possession of her single-family home.
The licensee subsequently moved for leave to reargue the Court’s July 30, 2026, Decision/Order granting Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s motion for summary judgment. The Court granted leave to reargue solely to permit reconsideration of its prior decision. After reviewing the licensee’s arguments, however, the Court found that he had failed to demonstrate that the Court had overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law, or otherwise erred in reaching its determination. Accordingly, the Court adhered to its July 30, 2026, Decision/Order in all respects and confirmed that the homeowner could proceed with execution of the warrant.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully represented the homeowner in the holdover proceeding and secured her right to regain possession of her home.
Carolyn Z. Rualo and Dov A Treiman were the managing attorneys on the proceeding. Nurie Metodieva drafted the opposition papers to defeat the motion to stay. Caleb J. Brown successfully argued the motions before the Court.