Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

denied their motion to stay the Supreme Court action "in an oral, unrecorded opinion in
Chambers . . . because respondent[s'] claim for diminution of services and overage are Landlord
Tenant matters." (Affirmation of Fernandez, Mar. 8, 2010, � 8.) Respondents cite no other
justification to support their position that their counterclaims should stand.

C. Denial of Respondent's Motion to Consolidate.

On November 27, 2009, respondents moved to consolidate the instant proceeding with three
similar cases involving tenants in the same building, all also represented by respondents'
attorney. The Honorable Brenda Spears denied respondents' motion to consolidate the instant
cases, along with a fifth additional tenant, on November 23, 2009, under Index No. L & T
85492/2009. After considering petitioner's affirmation in opposition and respondents' reply
affirmation in support, this court denied respondent's motion to consolidate on December 8,
2009, in short written decision holding that this court is collaterally estopped from granting the
relief that Judge Spears denied. The six nonpayment proceedings, all involving nearly identical
motions, have been sent to different resolution parts. The proceedings involving respondents
Chen and Ming were assigned to this court.

D. Respondent Chen's Motion for Leave to Conduct Disclosure.

On December 4, 2009, the Honorable Joseph Capella denied respondent Chen's subpoena
request, holding that a "[t]rial subpoena must specify documents sought with reasonable
particularity. This subpoena is actually a request for discovery." (Order Denying Subpeona,
Capella, J. [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County Dec. 4, 2009].) On December 30, 2009, respondents
Chen and Ming moved for leave to conduct disclosure under CPLR 408; sought a stay until the