Ntiru v. WV Preserv. Partners, LLC

Ntiru v WV Preserv. Partners, LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 30662(U) February 26, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158358/2021 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 158358/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 158358/2021 RICHARD NTIRU, MARION NTIRU, MOTION DATE 09/04/2024 Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- WV PRESERVATION PARTNERS, LLC,WESTVIEW DECISION + ORDER ON OWNERS CORP, NORTH TOWN PHASE III HOUSES, INC. MOTION Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER .

In this action involving an offering plan for tenants of affordable housing units, defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.

Plaintiff Marion Ntiru is the daughter of Richard Ntiru, the sole tenant of record of Apartment 324 in the housing complex located at 625 Main Street, New York, NY (the building), owned by defendants (NYSCEF Doc No 68 ¶¶ 1-3). On July 31, 2018, the building was withdrawn from the Mitchell Lama Program, an affordable housing rental initiative, and became subject to a new affordability plan (id. ¶¶ 4-5). The new affordability plan provided that each “bona fide Mitchell Lama tenant” was entitled to purchase their apartments at an insider price during an exclusive period (id. ¶ 16; NYSCEF Doc No 29). A “bone fide Mitchell Lama tenant” is defined as: (i) the tenant named in the existing Mitchell Lama lease provided that such person is in actual physical possession and occupancy of the apartment as his primary residence and has so occupied the apartment continuously for the preceding 12 months (or the 158358/2021 NTIRU, RICHARD ET AL vs. WV PRESERVATION PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

(NYSCEF Doc No 29 § 5[iii] [emphasis added]).

Richard, as tenant of record, received a purchase agreement on September 30, 2019. On February 17, 2020, Richard returned the agreement with his signature, but it was also signed by Marion as a second tenant (id. ¶¶ 10-11; NYSCEF Doc Nos 34-35). On March 26, 2020, Richard was advised that the agreement was incomplete/void because it improperly added Marion as a tenant, and he was given another “blank lease for the tenant of record’s signature only” (id. ¶ 12; NYSCEF Doc No 36). Richard never returned the agreement with only his signature, and the exclusive period expired on July 19, 2021 (id. ¶¶ 13, 17).

Plaintiffs’ causes of action are for: (i) a declaratory judgment that “one or both Plaintiffs is or are entitled to purchase the Subject Apartment as insiders,” and an injunction directing defendants to “recognize and give full force and effect to the [purchase] agreement” and to convey the apartment to plaintiffs; and (ii) a “declaratory judgment that Defendants have engaged in a systematic policy in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including GBL Section 349, by systematically refusing to recognize [purchase] agreements,” an injunction enjoining them from engaging in the business of cooperative apartment sales, and a monetary judgment (NYSCEF Doc No 1).

Defendants have demonstrated that neither Richard nor Marion were bona fide Mitchell Lama tenants such that they were entitled to enter the purchase agreement at the insider price.

Assistant manager of defendant WV Preservation Partners LLC Candee B. Chusid stated in an 158358/2021 NTIRU, RICHARD ET AL vs. WV PRESERVATION PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

Additionally, defendants note that the purchase agreement instructions advised: “If the [purchase] agreement is altered in any way, it will be considered void and will not be accepted” (NYSCEF Doc No 39). Plaintiffs’ argument that the purchase agreement was not “altered” by adding Marion as a tenant/purchaser is without merit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

158358/2021 NTIRU, RICHARD ET AL vs. WV PRESERVATION PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for February 27, 2025 is canceled.

2/26/2025 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

158358/2021 NTIRU, RICHARD ET AL vs. WV PRESERVATION PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002