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/10358208/tibta-v-156-e-21-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,604 chars

In the alternative, respondents request the court determine an undertaking in order to [*3]"trigger" an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (6). Respondents argue the court must determine an undertaking pursuant to the statute should it deny a stay under CPLR 5519 (c), and that it "should be in the form other than the payment of money." (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) Respondent, 156 E 21 LLC, alleges that petitioner currently resides in apartment 4F in the subject building for which there is a pending licensee holdover proceeding, 156 E 21 LLC v Tibta et al, Index Number LT-316041-24/KI. Respondents contend "[a] suitable and fair undertaking to be considered . . . would be one in which that proceeding was stayed against [p]etitioner only and without the necessity of paying any rent and/or use and occupancy to 156 E 21 LLC by [p]etitioner during the stay pending appeal in this case," while 156 E 21 LLC can be stayed "from reletting the apartment in this proceeding if [Omar] vacate[s] the apartment during the appeal." Respondents' position is that a stay conditioned upon these terms would prevent petitioner from suffering any loss during the appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 44-48.) However, on March 12, 2025, the first court appearance in the licensee holdover proceeding, petitioner entered into a stipulation consenting to a judgment of possession on the basis that petitioner herein has already vacated apartment 4F. (LT-316041-24/KI, 156 E 21 LLC v Tibta et al, stipulation and judgment of possession, NYSCEF Doc Nos.10-11.) Thus, the foregoing suggestion is no longer a viable alternative for an undertaking.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text