Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of County Court
that vacated a judgment of eviction rendered by Town Court and
remitted the matter to Town Court for a jury trial, as demanded by
respondents, tenants who lease a lot in petitioner’s seasonal
manufactured home park. Contrary to County Court’s conclusion, Town
Court properly granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the
petition. Because there are no triable issues of fact, petitioner was
entitled to summary judgment and a warrant of eviction. We note,
however, that Town Court improperly determined that petitioner was
entitled to summary judgment on the ground that its documentary proof
conclusively established that no retaliatory eviction occurred.
Neither affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction contained in Real
Property Law §§ 223-b or 233 (n) applies to the property at issue.
Real Property Law § 223-b applies to “rental residential premises” (§
223-b [6]). Here, respondents leased only a lot from petitioner, and
we conclude that a mobile home, owned outright and placed on a lot
rented for seasonal use and occupancy, is not a “rental residential
premises” within the meaning of section 223-b. That statute was
directed at landlords, to ensure that they comply with housing codes
and the State’s warranty of habitability statute (see Executive Dept
-2- 487
CA 13-00512