family, are both employed in New York and pay taxes from the Subject Premises (Exhibit R to
moving papers). Petitioner's established occupancy of the building as a family residence since
2006 evinces the necessary requirement of good faith.
Respondent cross-moves for summary judgment. Much of the focus of Respondent's
cross-motion discusses concern prior determinations he feels were wrongly made, but which.
[*7]are now law of the case, and binding on this Court. This
includes but is not limited to Judge Hahn's September 14, 2010 order striking Respondent's
answer. This Court has no jurisdiction to vacate or modify the order of Judge Hahn and is bound
by same. Respondent suggests that Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is not timely, but
Petitioner's motion was brought in accordance with Judge Halperin's October 13, 2011 order
providing for same. Respondent's GAL has been present at all Court dates, and has taken the
position that there remains no meritorious defense to assert on behalf of Respondent, given the
procedural history of the proceeding as outline above. The Court has considered all submissions
by Respondent and finds that nothing contained therein presents a defense to the underlying
proceeding in light of the prior court order striking Respondent's answer.
Petitioner has established a prima facie entitlement to possession as a matter
of law, given that Respondent's answer has been stricken. With respect to Petitioner's motion for
a default judgment against Violet Delisser, the motion is denied and the Court dismisses the
action against her. It is uncontested that Violet Delisser has not been in occupancy since at least
2005 when Petitioner purchased the subject building, and was only named because she is