167 E 99 LLC v. Latty

167 E 99 LLC v Latty (2025 NY Slip Op 50559(U))

[*1] <table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>167 E 99 LLC v Latty</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2025 NY Slip Op 50559(U) [85 Misc 3d 139(A)]</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Decided on April 21, 2025</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Appellate Term, First Department</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">As corrected in part through May 14, 2025; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.</td></tr> </tbody></table> <br><br> Decided on April 21, 2025 <br><div></div>SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT <br>PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.

<br>570432/24 <br><br><div><b>167 E 99 LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Paul Latty, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.</b></div><br><br>

<p>Tenant appeals from: (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Travis J. Arrindell, J.), dated April 11, 2024, which denied his motion to reargue a prior order (same court and Judge), dated April 18, 2023, which denied tenant's CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss the petition; (2) an order of the same court (Frances Ortiz, J.), dated June 4, 2024, which denied tenant's second motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a); and (3) an order (same court and Judge), dated June 4, 2024, which denied tenant's motion for recusal in a holdover summary proceeding.</p>

<p><strong>Per Curiam.</strong></p> <p>Orders (Frances Ortiz, J.), each dated June 4, 2024, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs. Appeal from order (Travis J. Arrindell, J.), dated April 11, 2024, dismissed, without costs, as taken from nonappealable paper.</p> <p>Civil Court properly denied tenant's second motion to dismiss landlord's failure to provide access claim as violative of the single motion rule, which permits a party to move only once upon one or more of the grounds enumerated under CPLR 3211(a) (<i>see TRB Acquisitions LLC v Yedid</i>, 225 AD3d 508 [2024]). In any event, since landlord subsequently withdrew this claim, this branch of the appeal is moot.</p> <p>Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion by denying tenant's recusal motion, as "allegations that a judge is biased or prejudiced must be based upon something other than rulings in the case [and tenant] offers no other basis for recusal" (<i>McNaughton v 5 W. Owners Corp</i>., — AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 00831 [2025]). </p> <p>The appeal from the April 11, 2024 order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (<i>see Brito v Allstate Ins. Co.</i>, 135 AD3d 568, 569 [2016]; <i>Matter of Suzanne v Suzanne</i>, 69 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2010]). Were we to reach the merits, we would, in any event affirm.</p> <p>We have considered tenant's remaining contentions and find them unpreserved and/or without merit.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 21, 2025

<br><br><div>

</div>