(718) 392-4447 | Hablamos Español


Manhattan Civil Court: Landlord cannot take second bite of the same apple—not in the Big Apple—where a moratorium on evictions remains in effect until August 31, 2021.

After failing to evict a Manhattan tenant in New York City Housing Court due to NY’s moratorium on evictions, a landlord attempted to obtain a money judgment by suing its tenant in a separate –and now dismissed—lawsuit in New York Civil Court.

The Court granted the tenant’s motion to dismiss his landlord’s case, which not only sought a money judgment for owed rent, but also attorneys’ fees. The Court agreed with the tenant, finding that the Landlord’s pending eviction or holdover petition involving the same parties regarding the same apartment barred the Landlord’s second lawsuit. 

The Court was unconvinced by the Landlord’s argument that because of Governor Cuomo’s COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (CEEFPA), the eviction case was not active or pending.  The Court stated that the landlord’s attempt to redefine the word ‘pending’ was unavailing and that the “holdover action is ‘pending’ because, by definition, it remains active and undecided.” Moreover, the Court reasoned that the stay on the evictions is extended only until August 31, 2021, and as such “it cannot be said that it is not ‘pending’ in any meaningful way.”   

This decision is significant because it denies the Landlord’s attempt to circumvent the protections afforded to New York tenants by New York State’s current emergency eviction moratorium.  

Governor Cuomo’s COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (CEEFPA) remains in effect until August 31, 2021.   

The tenant was represented by Usar Law Group, PC.

Read Manhattan Civil Court’s Decision/Order below:

Decision/Order of NYC Civil Court

Plaintiffs granted money judgment for Defendant’s dishonored checks in business venture

Queens Supreme Court Justice Allan B. Weiss awarded two money judgments to plaintiffs who were Queens residents at the time they entered into a business venture with defendant. In or around 2006 two individual plaintiffs signed a shareholder agreement with defendant for the purpose of running a restaurant business in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. The restaurant proved to be successful, soon after the defendant offered to buy plaintiffs’ shares in the business, and plaintiffs agreed to sell.

Thereafter, defendant made down payments for the shares, and gave plaintiffs two post-dated checks for the remaining balance. When the remaining payments were due plaintiffs deposited the checks but to their dismay both checks bounced. Plaintiffs many attempts to collect the owed balance from defendant failed and the lawsuit followed. In awarding the money judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Justice Weiss declared that the plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to money judgment as against the defendant. In light of the overwhelming evidence, Justice Weiss noted that defendant failed to disprove the plaintiffs’ allegations as to his liability on the checks.

Plaintiffs’ effort did not stop there. After obtaining the money judgment, plaintiffs successfully collected on their judgment.

Plaintiffs in this case were represented by Usar Law Group, P.C.

Read the Supreme Court Decision/Order below:


Justice Pam Jackman Brown puts an end to a bitterly contested divorce by ordering the sale of marital co-op, and separately awards Husband $31,634.69 which Wife had transferred from Husband’s retirement and bank accounts without his knowledge during the marriage

In a decision after trial, Queens Supreme Court Justice Pam Jackman Brown decided that the best way to end the dispute over marital home was to sell it. “This property must be sold” decreed Justice Brown in her decision handed down after three (3) days of trial.

The husband and wife in this divorce action had a child together. The parties, both Woodside, Queens residents, bought a two (2) bedroom co-op shortly after they married. During the pendency of their divorce, the Defendant husband moved out of the marital home and remained living separately.

The co-op which is located in Queens will be appraised by a mutually agreed to appraiser and plaintiff will receive fifty percent (50%) credit “only on the principal paid down on the mortgage after the date Defendant vacated the marital residence.” In addition to his 50% share, the husband also will receive an additional $15,000.00 credit for the separate funds he had used toward the down payment.

The Court separately found that the wife had engaged in unduly dilatory tactics throughout the divorce proceedings for which she had been admonished previously. The wife also failed to comply with discovery demands and failed to put into evidence any financial information regarding her income, her credit card statements, her IRA account and her bank statements. The Court also found that wife made unauthorized transfers from the husband’s investment account into her own personal bank accounts. On two separate occasions, the wife transferred $7,750.00 in total. All in all, the wife withdrew the sum of approximately $31,634.69. The money will be returned to the husband from the sale proceeds of the co-op.

This case highlights the perils of non-disclosure of financial information during divorce proceedings.

The husband was successfully represented by Faruk Usar, Esq. of Usar Law Group, P.C.

Debtor, a Queens resident, defeats Creditor collection agency’s motion for summary judgment

Queens Civil Court, Judge Honorable Barry A. Schwartz denied a motion for summary judgment brought by plaintiff-creditor CACH LLC acting on behalf of Bank of America. In his defense to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the debtor defendant, a Queens resident, submitted a letter from another collection agency purportedly settling Bank of America’s alleged claim against him, along with supporting affidavits, other evidence, and a Memorandum of Law, arguing why the case should proceed to trial. Judge Schwartz found that the debtor defendant sufficiently established an issue of fact, and held that the creditor failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The Court granted debtor’s motion to amend his answer and to include counterclaims. After the Court’s denial of the creditor’s summary judgment, creditor voluntarily withdrew their lawsuit and the action against the debtor was dismissed.

Debtor was represented by Usar Law Group, P.C. in this Consumer Credit lawsuit.

Read Queens Civil Court Decision/Order below:

Decision-Order on Motions for Summary Judgment