Tibta v. 156 E 21 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 25064 (2025)

Citation: Tibta v. 156 E 21 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 25064 (2025)
Parent Document: Tibta v. 156 E 21 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 25064 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10360937/tibta-v-156-e-21-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,409 chars

CPLR 5519 (c) — Discretionary Stay Pending AppealRespondents' argument that the court should consider an undertaking pursuant to the discretionary stay provisions of CPLR 5519 (c) is not persuasive.[FN4]
In Callendar, noting the [*5]paucity of authority directly on point, this court further held that an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (6) was not appropriate given the equities which included a purportedly long-term, elderly tenant seeking succession to her deceased husband's rent stabilized apartment. Reasoning that were the stay to be conditioned upon market rent, the would-be-successor-appellant would face certain eviction prior to the Appellate Term rendering a decision after appeal, 
the court set the proceeding for a hearing regarding an appropriate discretionary stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (c). Generally speaking, CPLR 5519 (c) undertakings are based on consideration of the merits of the appeal, and the equities of both parties. (See Davies, New York Civil Appellate Practice § 9:4 [3d ed, 8 West's NY Prac Series, June 2024 update]; 1 Newman, New York Appellate Practice § 6.04 [2023].) Here, in addition to the factors that distinguish this case from the facts in Callendar, a discretionary analysis pursuant to CPLR 5519 (c) would be an academic exercise as both the equities of the joined third-party, Omar, and the merits herein have been determined by this court after trial.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text