On August 14, 2025, Attorney Hamilton appeared as counsel for Mayfair Management Group and requested that Mayfair be removed as a party to the action, pursuant to CPLR § 440, stating that as of July 2025, Mayfair was no longer associated with Nob Hill. This request was denied since the bulk of the complaints, regarding the failures of management to address habitability issues and make necessary repairs, occurred while Mayfair was the property management company of record for Nob Hill Apartment Group. Counsel now renews the motion for dismissal of the actions against Mayfair by written submission and claims that Mayfair was not responsible for tenant complaints and/or facilitating repairs to the Nob Hill buildings. Counsel failed to submit or include any documentation or contract to support this assertion, despite including fourteen exhibits in his motion. Testimony by property manager John Giannuzzi, confirms that Mayfair was the property management company until September 2025.
Regardless of Mayfair's alleged recent separation, the Court finds that Mayfair is a properly named respondent in these actions pursuant to RPAPL § 797-b. For most, if not all of the timeframes outlined in the petitions, Mayfair was the entity that the tenants had contact with regarding leasing, rent payments and arrears, and complaints regarding needed repairs and habitability concerns. Tenants only had access to Mayfair employees with regard to these matters. A landlord/tenant relationship exists with property management company whose employees are responsible for the direct payment or collection of rent (Bykovtseva v. DTH Capital, Inc., 239 AD3d 476, 233 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept. 2025]); as such, Mayfair fits the description of a proper party pursuant to RPAPL § 797-b.