In HML v. T., the Appellate Term, First Department, reviewed a series of rulings stemming from a holdover summary proceeding initiated by the landlord, HML, against the tenant, T. The dispute centered on T.’s continued occupancy of a $9,300-per-month unregulated condominium unit after the expiration of her lease.
On the scheduled trial date, T. appeared unprepared, lacked evidentiary support for her defenses—including claims related to the warranty of habitability—and ultimately left the courtroom voluntarily. The Civil Court treated her departure and lack of preparation as a default. As a result, the court entered a final judgment awarding possession of the unit to the landlord and a monetary judgment of $102,200. The Appellate Term dismissed T.'s appeal from this judgment, noting that no appeal lies from a decision entered on default.
T. later moved to vacate the default and reopen the record, but the court denied her motion. The Appellate Term affirmed this denial, emphasizing that T. failed to offer a valid excuse for her default and did not demonstrate the existence of any viable defenses to the landlord’s claims for possession or use and occupancy.
In a separate motion, T. requested a stay of eviction. The court granted this request but conditioned it on her payment of ongoing use and occupancy at the rate specified in the expired lease. The Appellate Term found this condition appropriate and affirmed the order.
The court concluded its opinion by stating that it had considered T.’s remaining arguments and found them unavailing.
Is there no appealing a disappearing act?
# # #
DECISION