WITHOUT NEW EVIDENCE, MOTION COULDN’T BE REMADE
When a landlord brought a holdover proceeding seeking to evict a tenant from an allegedly unregulated apartment, the latter countered that the unit was rent regulated and that she had been overcharged. In 2018, the owner’s motion for summary judgment – i.e., a pre-trial determination in its favor that the unit was “fair market” -- was denied by the Civil Court. And after tenant filed an answer, the owner moved to reargue that 2018 determination, and (in September of 2020) that reargument application was also denied.
Several months later, in November of 2020, the owner once again moved for summary judgment, and after that effort was also rebuffed, an appeal ensued.
On its review of the case, the Appellate Term, First Department, noted that “successive” or “multiple” motions for pre-trial relief in a party’s favor are usually “discouraged,” unless a litigant can present “newly discovered evidence or ‘other sufficient cause.’”
Because there were no “new issues” raised, and the latest motion was based on the identical evidence, and the same arguments, that had been addressed by the Civil Court twice before, the AT1 thought that the landlord’s latest request for relief had been properly rejected.
Looks like the third time wasn’t a charm ….
# # #
DECISION