"local court for the purposes of summary proceedings" (id.), despite what the parties call
the amount due. The Second Department explained that "accelerated rent" is "contractual
damages not recoverable in a summary proceeding." (Id.)
Nor does this court possess the equitable jurisdiction to order respondents to replenish the
escrow account. As many courts have found, "except for proceedings for the enforcement of
housing standards and applications for certain provisional remedies, the New York City Civil
Court may not grant injunctive relief." (Broome Realty Assocs. v Sek Wing, 182 Misc 2d
917, 918 [App Term 1st Dept 1999, per curiam]; accord World Realty Corp. v Consumer
Sales, 9 Misc 3d 136(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51696[U], *2, 2005 WL 2683595, at *2, 2005
NY Misc. LEXIS 2288, at *2 [App Term 2d Dept 9th & 10th Jud Dists, Oct. 20, 2005]; 7
Highland Mgt. Corp. v McCray, 9 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51530[U], *2, 2005
WL 2347662, at * 2, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2074, at *2 [App Term 2d Dept 9th & 10th Jud
Dists, Sept. 23, 2005, mem]; Topaz
Realty Corp. v Morales, 9 Misc 3d 27, 28-29 [App Term, 2d Dept 9th & 10th Jud Dists,
July 21, 2005, mem].)
In Topaz Realty, the parties agreed to a stipulation by which the landlord promised to
give to the tenant funds held in escrow when the tenant vacated the premises. The tenant was
unable to return the key to the landlord because the landlord refused to give him a receipt in
return. Civil Court ordered the landlord's attorney to hand over to the tenant the funds held in
escrow. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that Civil Court's order
directing the landlord's attorney to release the funds "was injunctive and equitable in nature and
not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court." (Topaz, 9 Misc 3d at 28.)