Landlord Seeks to Recover SRO Building

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized SRO tenant for owner-occupancy purposes. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case because landlord had brought a separate action against a different tenant claiming that that individual lived in the same room. Tenant also claimed that landlord improperly sought to recover SRO units without obtaining a certificate of no harassment from HPD. The court ruled against tenant. Although landlord had started an ejectment action in State Supreme Court against another occupant landlord claimed was occupying the "third floor front room"   and this was the same description used to identify the premises in the housing court eviction case against tenant, the two cases weren't identical.  It also seemed unlikely that tenant and the occupant named in the other case were living in the same SRO room. While it may be appropriate to consolidate the two cases to prevent inconsistent results, the housing part of the Civil Court didn't have the authority to send the eviction case to State Supreme Court. Tenant could, however, seek consolidation with the Supreme Court action from that court. Tenant also argued that the case should be dismissed because landlord sought the whole SRO building for owner occupancy yet hadn't obtained a certificate of no harassment from HPD. The court found that this may be a consideration in determining whether landlord was acting in good faith, but wasn't grounds to dismiss the case outright. 

Briskin v. Mills: 38 Misc.3d 1227(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 50291(U) (Civ. Ct. NY; 2/27/13; Kraus, J)