that the parties intended that landlord would be entitled to a judgment of possession if he
demonstrated that tenant had defaulted on the terms of either stipulation. Indeed, tenant did not
move for a hearing on the merits of the petition in the Civil Court.
Finally, it is noted that landlord asserts on appeal that tenant was evicted in December 2008
and that there is a new tenant in possession of the subject premises. Consequently, tenant could
not, in any event, be restored to possession at this time without joining the new tenant (see
e.g. Eight Assoc. v Hynes, 102 AD2d 746 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985]).
Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2009