Tags: illegal lockout, laches
Summary: Tenant brings illegal lockout proceeding against landlord, seeking restoration to their apartment. Proceeding barred by laches.
Decision: PDF file
Kesoglides v. Marine Terrace Assoc.
Court: City Civil Court, Queens County Housing Part
Judge: Judge Clifton Nembhard
Docket Number: 54835/16
Case Digest Summary
Petitioner commenced an illegal lockout proceeding against respondents, seeking an order directing respondents to restore possession of an apartment to respondent, and relocate the current occupant to another apartment. Petitioner argued he was entitled to relief because he successfully appealed his eviction. In response, respondents argued that petitioner was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. Petitioner subsequently moved to add Marine Terrace Housing Development Fund Corp. and "cross-moved" to add Marine Terrace Holdings LLC as necessary parties. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the motion was procedurally improper. The court first agreed that petitioner could not cross-move from his own motion. The court ruled that Holdings was the proper party, as it owned the building at the time of the lockout and when this proceeding was commenced. The court held that because Holdings and HDFC shared the same principals, the failure to serve was not fatal. The court ruled that petitioner's cause of action was not time-barred, but was barred by laches, since his claim accrued when he was evicted rather than when he secured a successful appeal.