| Olney v Areiter |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02127 [104 AD3d 1100] |
| March 28, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| William F. Olney, Doing Business as East Hill PropertiesRespondent, v Eric Areiter et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Holmberg, Galbraith, Van Houten & Miller, Ithaca (Dirk A. Galbraith of counsel),for respondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered June22, 2011 in Tompkins County, which, among other things, partially denied defendants'cross motion for a counsel fee award.
In July 2008, defendants and three other roommates entered into a written lease withplaintiff to rent an apartment for 13 months and to pay $2,625 in monthly rent. Plaintiffcommenced this action in April 2009, seeking $21,000 in rent and late fees, asserting thatdefendants failed to make rent payments after August 2008. Defendants answered and,along with their three other roommates who were not named as parties, assertedcounterclaims, including breach of the warranty of habitability.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at the conclusion of which the jury found thatdefendants and their roommates had breached the lease agreement and awarded plaintiff$17,000 in damages, reduced by $2,000 based upon plaintiff's failure to mitigate hisdamages. The jury further determined that plaintiff breached the warranty of habitability,and awarded defendants and their roommates $5,250. Plaintiff moved to set aside theverdict, and for a counsel fee award, and defendants and their roommates cross-movedfor the same relief. Supreme Court denied the motions for counsel fees, set aside theverdict, and ordered a new trial; the court [*2]concludedthat it had erred in refusing to instruct the jury on constructive eviction.
Defendants appeal, arguing solely that they and their roommates are entitled to acounsel fee award under Real Property Law § 234. We note, however, thatdefendants' roommates were not named as parties to the action and, because "[a]counterclaim may . . . be asserted [only] on behalf of a defendant already aparty to the action" (Bramex Assoc. v CBI Agencies, 149 AD2d 383, 385 [1989];see CPLR 3019 [a]; Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v Zeltser, 93 AD3d 504,505 [2012]), the counterclaims must be dismissed insofar as they assert a claim on behalfof the roommates. Nevertheless, defendants' roommates, who were signatories to thelease along with defendants, would appear to be necessary parties; that is, they are"[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between thepersons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgmentin the action" (CPLR 1001 [a]; see Censi v Cove Landings, Inc., 65 AD3d 1066,1067-1068 [2009]; cf. Matter ofHutton Devs. v 346-364 Washington Ave. Corp., 17 AD3d 977, 978 [2005]; Salvatore R. Beltrone Marital TrustII v Lavelle & Finn, LLP, 13 AD3d 869, 871 [2004]).
This Court has previously held that a court may not, on its own initiative, add ordirect the addition of a party (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912[2009]; New Medico Assoc. v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 267 AD2d757, 758-759 [1999]). That said, "[a] court may always consider whether there has beena failure to join a necessary party," including on its own motion, and for the first time onappeal (City of New York v Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp., 48 NY2d469, 475 [1979]; see Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., Hudson City SchoolDist., 35 NY2d 272, 282 [1974]; Censi v Cove Landings, Inc., 65 AD3d at1068). Inasmuch as the counterclaims, insofar as they were asserted on behalf ofdefendants' roommates, must be dismissed, we now remit the matter to Supreme Court tohold a hearing to determine whether the roommates are necessary parties who should bejoined and, if so, to permit them to be joined by motion, stipulation or otherwise; ifjoinder cannot be effectuated, the court must then determine whether the action should bepermitted to proceed in the absence of necessary parties (see CPLR 1001 [b];1003; Censi v Cove Landings, Inc., 65 AD3d at 1068; Matter of Remillard v Luck, 2AD3d 1179, 1180 n 2 [2003]; see also Windy Ridge Farm v Assessor of Town of Shandaken,11 NY3d 725, 727 [2008]; Matter of Romeo v New York State Dept. of Educ., 41 AD3d1102, 1104-1105 [2007]).
Defendants' request for counsel fees was premature and, thus, properly denied.
Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on thelaw, without costs, by (1) dismissing the counterclaims insofar as they are asserted onbehalf of nonparties, and (2) reversing so much thereof as directed a new trial prior todetermination of whether there has been a failure to join a necessary party; matterremitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 1001,consistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.