New York Law Review

Tag: Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law

  • Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674 (1994): Mandamus Compels Judgment in Landlord-Tenant Cases Upon Tenant’s Default

    Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674 (1994)

    In a summary proceeding for nonpayment of rent, when a tenant fails to answer the petition and proof of service is established, the court has a ministerial duty under RPAPL 732(3) to render judgment for the landlord, and mandamus will lie to compel the court to do so.

    Summary

    Brusco, a landlord, initiated a summary proceeding against a tenant for unpaid rent. The tenant failed to appear or answer. The Civil Court Judge, Braun, refused to enter a default judgment without an inquest, following a general practice. Brusco sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to enter judgment. The Court of Appeals held that RPAPL 732(3) mandates the judge to render judgment in favor of the landlord when a tenant defaults, and the requirements for service are met. The court found no discretionary authority for the judge to hold an inquest in such circumstances. This case clarifies the mandatory nature of RPAPL 732(3) in straightforward default scenarios, streamlining the process for landlords.

    Facts

    Brusco owned residential property and commenced a summary proceeding against a tenant for defaulting on $3,626.04 in rent. Brusco sought a judgment for the arrears, interest, attorney’s fees, possession of the premises, and a warrant to remove the tenant. The tenant was personally served with a notice of petition and petition. The tenant failed to appear or answer within five days. Brusco requested a final judgment and warrant, but the Civil Court Judge scheduled an inquest despite the tenant’s default and Brusco’s verified petition and proof of service.

    Procedural History

    Brusco initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus to compel the Civil Court Judge to sign a judgment in his favor without further proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that scheduling an inquest was within the judge’s discretion. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s judgment, granting the petition for mandamus directing the judge to enter a judgment of possession and rent due in favor of the landlord. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a Civil Court Judge retains discretion to withhold a judgment pursuant to RPAPL 732(3) when a petition demonstrates grounds for relief and the supporting papers establish proper service on the tenant, and the tenant defaults.

    Holding

    No, because RPAPL 732(3) mandates that “the judge shall render judgment in favor of the petitioner” when the petitioner proves service of the notice of petition and petition and the tenant fails to appear. The statute commands a specific action and dictates the result, leaving no room for judicial discretion to hold an inquest.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that mandamus is appropriate to compel a governmental officer to perform a ministerial duty where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought. RPAPL 732(3) establishes two factual predicates: (1) submission of an affidavit or certificate of service; and (2) failure of the tenant to respond within five days of service. If both conditions are met, the statute mandates the judge to render judgment in favor of the petitioner. The court emphasized the plain language of the statute, stating that it “not only commands an action; it dictates the result.” The court distinguished Evarts v. Kiehl, noting that it involved a situation where the judge had to determine disputed facts, a judicial function not subject to mandamus. Here, the statute resolves issues of fact against the tenant upon default. The court also rejected the argument that CPLR 3215(b) authorizes an inquest, holding that RPAPL 732 is a more specific statute that abrogates the general CPLR provision. The court noted the legislative balance in Article 7 of the RPAPL: “Article 7 represents the Legislature’s attempt to balance the rights of landlords and tenants to provide for expeditious and fair procedures for the determination of disputes involving the possession of real property”. The court noted that tenants have multiple protections including notice provisions and judicial remedies. Allowing judges to fashion additional protections would upset the legislative scheme.

  • Franza v. State, 43 N.Y.2d 102 (1977): State’s Waiver of Immunity in Real Property Actions

    Franza v. State, 43 N.Y.2d 102 (1977)

    The State waives its immunity from suit and may be joined as a defendant in actions brought under Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) to determine claims to real property, including actions seeking to establish easements and related damages.

    Summary

    Plaintiffs, distributees of a deceased joint owner, sued the State in Supreme Court (later transferred to Surrogate’s Court) seeking partition of property and determination of easement rights after a state appropriation allegedly landlocked a portion of the original property. They claimed the State failed to provide promised access. The Court of Appeals held that the State, through RPAPL § 1541 and § 904, waived its sovereign immunity regarding actions to determine adverse claims to real property and partition actions, allowing the suit to proceed in a forum other than the Court of Claims. However, causes of action seeking rescission or reformation of the compensation agreement required a specific waiver of immunity not demonstrated here.

    Facts

    The plaintiffs, as distributees, brought an action in Surrogate’s Court regarding real property. A portion of the property was appropriated by the State in 1967. The plaintiffs contended that the appropriation created an easement of access over the taken parcel for the benefit of the remaining landlocked segment of the original property. The landowners allegedly entered into a compensation agreement with the State, with the understanding that the State would provide access to public highways for the landlocked segment. The State allegedly failed to provide the promised easement.

    Procedural History

    Plaintiffs filed suit in Supreme Court seeking partition, later amended to include claims against the State. The case was transferred to Surrogate’s Court. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Claims. The Surrogate denied the motion. The Appellate Division modified the Surrogate’s order by dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the State has waived its immunity from suit and may be joined as a defendant in an action brought under Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to determine adverse claims to real property, including the establishment of an easement and related damages, in a forum other than the Court of Claims.
    2. Whether the State has waived its immunity from suit in an action for partition of real property where the State owns a portion of the property subject to the partition action.
    3. Whether claims for rescission or reformation of a compensation agreement with the State, or for specific performance requiring the State to provide an easement, can be brought outside the Court of Claims absent a specific waiver of immunity.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because RPAPL § 1541 expressly authorizes the joinder of the State as a defendant in actions to determine adverse claims to real property, constituting a waiver of immunity.
    2. Yes, because RPAPL § 904 designates the State as a permissible defendant in an action for partition, thereby waiving immunity for such actions.
    3. No, because actions seeking rescission or reformation of agreements with the State, or specific performance compelling State action, require a specific waiver of immunity not demonstrated here, and thus must be brought in the Court of Claims.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that RPAPL § 1541 explicitly allows the State to be joined in actions to determine adverse claims to real property. This statutory provision acts as a waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity. The relief available under Article 15 includes declarations of validity of claims, cancellation or reformation of instruments, awards of possession, and damages. The court emphasized that whether the plaintiffs actually possessed an easement was the very issue to be resolved, and dismissing the claim prematurely would deny them the opportunity to prove their case. Citing RPAPL § 904, the court stated that the State is a permissible defendant in partition actions, resulting in a waiver of immunity regarding such actions. However, the court found no statutory basis for suing the state outside of the Court of Claims for actions seeking rescission/reformation of the compensation agreement or specific performance, noting, “For actions of such a nature no waiver of the State’s immunity permitting suit outside the Court of Claims has been demonstrated.”