Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), dated December 9, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking, in effect, to permanently enjoin tenant from removing a coal oven from the subject premises, in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking, in effect, to permanently enjoin tenant from removing a coal oven from the subject premises is denied.

In this holdover summary proceeding, the parties stipulated to, among other things, the entry of a final judgment of possession in favor of landlord and the issuance of a warrant of eviction, with execution of the warrant to be stayed until November 30, 2011. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, landlord thereafter cross-moved for, among other things, an order directing tenant not to remove a coal oven from the subject premises. By order dated December 9, 2011, insofar as appealed from, the Civil Court, in effect, permanently enjoined tenant from removing the coal oven.

It is well settled that injunctive relief is generally not available in a summary proceeding brought in the Civil Court (see North Waterside Redevelopment Co. v Febbraro, 256 AD2d 261 [2003] Hotel New Yorker Pharmacy v New Yorker Hotel Corp., 40 AD2d 967 [1972]). "[E]xcept for proceedings for the enforcement of housing standards (CCA 110 [a] [4] 203 [o]) and applications for certain provisional remedies (CCA 209 [b]), the New York City Civil Court may not grant injunctive relief" (Topaz Realty Corp. v Morales, 9 Misc 3d 27, 28 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted] see also Green v Lakeside Manor Home for Adults, Inc., 30 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010] Jiskra v Canesper, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51968[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008] cf. 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [2008]). The Civil Court may, in a proceeding to
recover possession of real property, issue an order restraining a party "pursuant to § 211 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, in conjunction with the prevention of waste" (CCA [*2]209 [b]). However, RPAPL 211 provides for the issuance of an injunction to prevent waste or damage only during the pendency of the action and does not allow for the issuance of a permanent injunction, which is what the Civil Court, in effect, ordered here. Furthermore, while CCA 212 states that "[i]n the exercise of its jurisdiction the Civil Court shall have all of the powers that the supreme court would have in like actions and proceedings," this court has long held that CCA 212 "does not expand the jurisdiction of [the New York City Civil Court] to include equitable jurisdiction not elsewhere specifically conferred" (Rottenberg v Cirillo, 58 Misc 2d 309, 309 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1968]).

We note that we do not pass on the issue of the ownership rights to, or the status of, the coal oven (see generally 59 NY Jur 2d, Fixtures § 49; 1 Robert F. Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings, ch 16).

Since the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking, in effect, to permanently enjoin tenant from removing a coal oven from the subject premises is denied.

Aliotta, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 07, 2014