position, no vacancy exists in this case since respondent has lived in the apartment through
multiple lease renewals (See: Linden v. DHCR, 217 AD2d 407). Respondent is not a new
tenant there was an eviction and this Court restored him to possession. Simply stated, the Court
restored him to his former tenancy which was in existence prior to the eviction.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing
discussion, the Court denies petitioner's cross-motion for reargument in its entirety. This
constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Dated: August 13, 2007
Brooklyn, NY
________________________________
ANTHONY J. FIORELLA, JR., J.H.C.