Appellate Term, First Department · October 20, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U]
East Harlem MEC Parcel C, L.P. v Smalls
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U]
Holding The Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the landlord’s motion to renew its opposition because the landlord failed to justify the delay and the new evidence would not change the prior determination. The court found that an unsworn letter from the Department of Buildings did not constitute a formal agency opinion or definitive final agency determination entitled to deference.
The court’s words
Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in denying landlord's motion to renew, brought nearly two years after Civil Court's September 2023 order dismissing the nonpayment petition
2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U], at the official text
Landlord failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to present the purported new information on the prior motion
2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U], at the official text
the new information, an ex parte unsworn letter from the Department of Buildings, dated August 26, 2025, would not change the prior determination
2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U], at the official text
it constitutes neither a formal agency opinion or a definitive final agency determination that is entitled to deference
2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U], at the official text
| Court | Appellate Term, First Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | October 20, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U] |
| Area of law | Civil Procedure |
| Week | Week ending October 24, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U] |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 1342 |
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, East Harlem MEC Parcel C, L.P. v Smalls, 2026 NY Slip Op 51743[U] (Appellate Term, First Department, October 20, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-51743-u/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch works