SEEKING RELIEF IN SUPREME COURT - RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD TENANT ISSUES

This was a NYC case.

Friedman Residence LLC v. Denson, Date filed: 2021-03-29, Court: Supreme Court, New York, Judge: Justice Paul Goetz, Case Number: 159576/20:

"Residential landlord-tenant issues such as use and occupancy and who is entitled to possession are typically resolved in Housing Court. Indeed, Housing Court is the strongly preferred forum for resolving landlord-tenant disputes (Brecker v. 295 Central Park West, Inc., 71 AD3d 564, 565 [1st Dept 2010]; Langotsky v. 537 Greenwich LLC, 45 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2007]; Solovieff Gallery Co. v. Langston, 167 AD2d 325 [1st Dept 1990]), “particularly where complete relief is available in that court” (L.B. v. Stahl York Ave. Co., 188 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2020]) and there are “no special circumstances or novel issues requiring Supreme Court involvement” (Brecker, 71 AD3d at 565).

When there are simultaneous cases pending in Supreme Court and Housing Court, it is not an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to stay the case before it pending resolution of the Housing Court proceeding (Langotsky, 45 AD3d at 405).

The principle that Housing Court is the preferred forum for resolution of residential landlord-tenant issues is further strengthened by the passage of the Provision of Legal Services in Eviction Proceedings law in 2017 (26 NYC Adm Code, Chapter 13) also known as the Universal Access to Counsel law in Housing Court (UAC). The UAC establishes a phased-in program to provide legal assistance and representation to income eligible tenants (those tenants with household incomes not in excess of 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines). The program the UAC establishes seeks to right the imbalance of power between unrepresented tenants and represented landlords in Housing Court (see generally 2247 Webser Ave. JDFC v. Galarce, 62 Misc 3d 1036 (Bx Civ Ct 2019] [discussing various studies concluding that increasing access to legal representation to tenants in Housing Court should be an imperative and some positive signs in that direction since the passage of the UAC]). However, the program established by the UAC is not available to tenants who are sued in Supreme Court ejectment actions because the UAC only applies to summary proceedings in housing court (or administrative proceeding brought by the New York city Housing Authority for termination of a tenancy) (26 NYC Adm Code §26 1301). Consequently allowing, ejectment actions such as this one where there is no imperative to seeking removal of the tenant1 would subvert the intent of the UAC by increasing the number of unrepresented tenants albeit in a new forum, Supreme Court and the principle that Housing Court is the strongly preferred forum for resolving landlord-tenant disputes.

Therefore, the appropriate forum for this case is Housing Court and that branch of plaintiff’s order to show cause seeking use and occupancy will be denied without prejudice to seeking such amounts in Housing Court. In addition, this action will be stayed for plaintiff to bring a proceeding against defendant in Housing Court and for resolution of that proceeding (CPLR §2201). Plaintiff can seek the remaining primary relief it seeks in Housing Court i.e. possession of the unit occupied by defendant and use and occupancy (NYC Civ Ct Act §110). To the extent plaintiff seeks a money judgment for alleged property damage caused by a sink overflowing and the installation of a chain lock (NYSCEF Doc 150), relief Housing Court is not empowered to grant, once the Housing Court proceeding is resolved (NYC Civ Ct Act §110), plaintiff may move to vacate the stay and restore this case to active status."

JURISDICTION, CHOICE OF LAW AND THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW

SETTER CAPITAL, INC. v. CHATEAUVERT, 2020 NY Slip Op 20199 - NY: Supreme Court July 15, 2020:

"As a threshold issue, there is a question as to whether this court has jurisdiction over defendant, a Canadian resident. Although the Agreement includes a choice of law and forum selection clause in which the parties agreed to submit to this court's jurisdiction, it is unclear that such tender is enforceable under the NY General Obligations Law (GOL). GOL § 5-1401 provides for the enforcement of choice of law provisions in contracts over $250,000 and GOL § 5-1402 provides for the enforcement of forum selection provisions in contracts over $1,000,000. (IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v Inepar Investments, S.A., 20 NY3d 310, 316 [2012] ("The goal of General Obligations Law § 5-1401 was to promote and preserve New York's status as a commercial center and to maintain predictability for the parties."), cert denied 569 US 994 [2013]).

However, GOL §5-1401 does not apply to contracts "for labor or personal services," and the Agreement here states that the employee is "to provide a highly personal service on a sustained and recurring basis to the Clients of Setter Capital." (NYSCEF 8, Agreement at 1.) Further, "NY-GOL § 5-1402 provides that an action based on a contract may be maintained in a New York court against a non-resident where: (1) the contract contains a choice of law clause pursuant to NY-GOL § 5-1401." (CPI NA Parnassub B.V. v Ornelas-Hernandez, 2009 NY Slip Op 30259[U], *7 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009].) Thus, if GOL §5-1401 is not applicable here, in turn neither is GOL §5-1402. (Barden Solutions, Inc. v Bassetti, 18 Misc 3d 1144[A], 1144A, 2005 NY Slip Op 52351[U], *2 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 2005].) Moreover, the court questions whether defendant, two years out of college when she signed the Agreement, was the sophisticated business person the legislature envisioned in 1985 when GOL §5-1401 and §5-1402 were enacted. (See IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A., 20 NY3d 310, 314 [2012] (The Sponsor's Memorandum states, "In order to encourage the parties of significant commercial, mercantile or financial contracts to choose New York law, it is important . . . that the parties be certain that their choice of law will not be rejected by a New York Court" [id. at 8]. The Legislature desired for parties with multi-jurisdictional contacts to avail themselves of New York law if they so designate in their choice-of-law provisions, in order to eliminate uncertainty and to permit the parties to choose New York's "well-developed system of commercial jurisprudence." [id. at 7])."