Appeal by tenant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (T. Fitzpatrick, J.), dated November 14, 2002, denying her motion to restore the matter to the calendar for the purpose of enforcing a provision of a so-ordered stipulation.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, tenant moved to restore the matter to the calendar for the purpose of enforcing a term of a so-ordered stipulation providing that "super will pick up rent checks." Tenant claimed that the provision did not only refer to the rent payments specifically adverted to in the stipulation but was meant to establish an ongoing arrangement and that landlord was not complying with the agreement as so interpreted. After oral argument, the court below denied the motion, finding that the provision did not establish a permanent arrangement going beyond the stipulation.

We affirm.

Except in limited circumstances not here applicable, the Civil Court does not have injunctive power (CCA 209 [b]; see e.g. North Waterside Development Corp. v Febbraro, 256 AD2d 261, 262; Hotel New Yorker Pharmacy v New Yorker Hotel Corp., 40 AD2d 967; Wren Props. of Nassau v Taveras, NYLJ, Oct. 4, 1999 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]) and cannot issue the direction sought by tenant. In any event, we agree with the lower court's determination that the stipulation cannot be understood to mean that the parties intended to establish an ongoing arrangement with respect to the method of payment of rent.
Decision Date: December 17, 2003