prosecution of its eviction claim in New York

2019Here, the long-term ruse carried out by respondent and tenant "represent[ed] a substantial departure from the ordinary course" ( Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp ., 226 AD2d 4, 14 [1996], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 NY2d 829 [1997]) and, by necessity, unduly prejudiced petitioner in the prosecution of its eviction claim.

2007The ruse carried out by respondent herein, by which he affirmatively misrepresented both his status and that of the deceased tenant for well over a decade, “represented] a substantial departure from the ordinary course” (Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 14 [1996], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 NY2d 829 [1997]) and, by necessity, unduly prejudiced petitioner in the prosecution of its eviction claim.

2019The tenant and her sister "affirmatively misrepresented the fact that tenant no longer resided in the apartment for more than eight years and, by necessity, unduly prejudiced landlord in the prosecution of its eviction claim" ( Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v Edwards , 23 Misc 3d 126 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50525[U] , *2 [App Term, 1st Dept 2009], affd 91 AD3d 532 ).

2018For example, in the Appellate Term decision that was affirmed in Third Lenox , the court stated that the family member and the tenant "affirmatively misrepresented the fact that tenant no longer resided in the apartment for more than eight years and, by necessity, unduly prejudiced landlord in the prosecution of its eviction claim" ( Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v Edwards , 23 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2009 NY Slip Op 50525[U] , *2 [App Term, 1st Dept], affd 91 AD3d 532 ; see South Pierre Assoc. v Mankowitz , 17 Misc 3d 53, 54-56 [App Term, 1st Dept] [finding that the respondent's actions of forging the

2019Likewise, the record so far developed is insufficient to establish as a matter of law that respondent did not reside with his sister in the apartment for the requisite period immediately prior to her death ( see 9 NYCRR 2523.5[b][1]), or that the forged renewal leases caused petitioner any discernible prejudice in the prosecution of its eviction claim [*2] ( compare South Pierre Assoc. v Mankowitz , 17 Misc 3d 53 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]; Riverton Assoc. v Knibb , 11 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]).

2006The language of Judge Eisner’s decision stated above is taken out of context as Judge Eisner referenced Riverton Assoc, v Knibb ( 11 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]) for the proposition that any fraud committed after the death of the tenant of record did not cause “petitioner any discernable prejudice in the prosecution of its eviction claim.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly, Judge Eisner never decided the issue of plenary damages as it relates to Meyers’ admitted breach of his fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.