Opinion
2007-624 K C.
Decided May 27, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered February 28, 2007. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Order affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In a holdover proceeding brought by plaintiff's then-landlord, Ten Bedsty, LLC, following termination of plaintiff's month-to-month tenancy, plaintiff interposed defenses based on claims of harassment, bias and retaliatory eviction (Real Property Law § 223-b). Plaintiff and Ten Bedsty, LLC settled the holdover summary proceeding by a so-ordered stipulation in which plaintiff, inter alia, consented to the entry of a final judgment of possession in favor of the landlord and reserved the right to pursue only the claim based on retaliatory eviction in a civil action. Plaintiff commenced the instant action against defendant, an agent and/or officer of Ten Bedsty, LLC, alleging, as causes of action, all the defenses interposed in the summary proceeding as well as a cause of action for wrongful eviction. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint (CPLR 3211 [a] [2], [7] and [10]). Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. Plaintiff did not preserve the right to bring an action based on the claims of harassment or bias. In any event, plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable cause of action based on these claims ( see e.g. Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc. , 18 AD3d 802 , 803; Jacobs v 200 E. 36th Owners Corp., 281 AD2d 281; Gabara v Bodajlo , 14 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52554[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]).
As for the wrongful eviction claim, by stipulating to a final judgment of possession, plaintiff conceded the validity of the proceeding on which the final judgment was based, and cannot now assert a claim for wrongful eviction ( see DiNolfi v Berkeley Assoc. Co., 98 AD2d 644). Plaintiff's retaliatory eviction claim fails to state a cause of action against defendant, who was not plaintiff's "landlord" (Real Property Law § 223-b). Accordingly, the complaint against defendant was properly dismissed.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.