STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
TOWN OF RAMAPO JUSTICE COURT
-------------------------------------------------------------X
ARETZ ASSOCIATES, INDEX NO. 25030560
Petitioner,
ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION
-against-
YECHIEL ROSENBERG and “JOHN DOES # 1”
through “JOHN DOES # 5”,
Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
I, FARVA SCOTT, ESQ, an attorney admitted to the practice of law before the courts of
the State of New York, and not a party to the above-entitled action, affirm the following:
1. I am the attorney for the Respondent in the above-entitled action.
2. The statements made herein are based upon my personal knowledge except as to
matters alleged to be upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be
true.
3. I submit this affirmation in reply and further support of Respondent's motion
seeking to dismiss the Holdover Petition filed by Petitioner Aretz Associates CPLR 3211(a)(2)
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Article 7 proceedings are designed to provide a swift and narrowly tailored
remedy for a property owner to recover possession from an occupant without delving into
complex issues of ownership, title, or equity.
5. As evidenced to by the land record filings attached to the complaint in the
supreme court case proceedings which was provided this motion, Respondent has been engaged
in a multi-year contractual relationship with Petitioner involving the purchase and financing of
the property subject to this proceeding located at 1 Miriam Lane, Monsey, New York (the
“Property”).
6. Respondent has been in possession of the Property for a decade where
7. Respondents paid substantial sums towards ownership, including multiple down
payments and interest payments, and were induced to sign a deed under the condition that it
would only be recorded in the event of foreclosure or final default, which Petitioner now
improperly relies upon.
8. The existence of a pending action seeking equitable relief precludes summary
resolution in this forum.
9. Petitioner’s attempt to invoke RPAPL § 713(9) ignores that Respondent was not
merely a licensee or prospective purchaser in possession, but someone with a longstanding
financial and contractual relationship with Petitioner that gives rise to a colorable claim of
equitable ownership—one that is the subject of ongoing litigation in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
10. This facts of this case clearly do not fit within the scope of Article 7 proceedings
and, even so, are better suited to be heard in the pending supreme court action in a court that has
proper authority to determine the equitable rights of the parties.
11. Petitioner also disregards that courts have routinely declined to entertain summary
proceedings where questions of ownership or title are at issue, especially where, as here, the
respondent is actively litigating those rights in Supreme Court.
12. In sum, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding,
and the matter must be addressed in the pending Supreme Court action where a full record and
equitable relief may be considered.
13. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion
to Dismiss in its entirety pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(2), and grant such other and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 13, 2025
Valhalla, New York
/s/ Farva Jafri
Farva Jafri, Esquire
The Law Offices of Farva Jafri
420 Columbus Ave, Ste 112
Valhalla, NY 10595
Tel: 914-417-9215
[email protected] Attorneys for Respondent
