This week on Monday, March 16, a deadly fire broke out at 132-05 Avery Avenue in Flushing, Queens College. Public court records indicate that the residential building was caught up in an eviction and violation dispute, which has now escalated to the enforcement stage.
According to documents from the Queens Civil Court, the landlord surnamed Ye, a Chinese individual, filed an eviction lawsuit on October 7, 2025, alleging that the tenant on the first floor was an “uncontracted, unauthorized occupant,” denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and requesting the court to issue an eviction order, take back possession of the property, and seek reimbursement for usage and occupation fees along with attorney fees.
The landlord argued that the property has fewer than six units and was vacant in 1974, therefore not subject to rent stabilization regulations and not required to provide a “just cause eviction notice.” He also claimed that the property is not a multiple dwelling and thus not obligated to register as one. The case was originally scheduled for a hearing in November 2025 but was subsequently postponed multiple times.
Tenant B.H., a Chinese individual, submitted a defense through a lawyer providing legal aid to low-income communities in January 2026, completely refuting the landlord’s claims, stating that they have had a formal lease since 2021 and are not illegal occupants.
B.H. asserted that the landlord surnamed Ye had authorized a landlord surnamed Tan to handle all real estate matters as early as 2006, and from 2021 to 2024, the landlord surnamed Tan provided the tenants with one-year leases annually, with the final lease expiring in June 2025.
In other words, the tenant has been a formal tenant since 2021 and not the “illegal occupant” as claimed by the landlord. B.H. argued that the termination notice sent by the landlord did not provide a “just cause eviction notice,” incorrectly stating that the tenant was not a tenant, insufficient notice period making the entire notice invalid, rendering the eviction process null and void.
The tenant also accused the landlord of abusing the law by intentionally using “John Doe” to mask the identity of known tenants, as they have resided there for four years, holding formal leases, and the landlord had been in contact with them through the years, hence the landlord could not claim ignorance of the tenants’ identities, constituting an abuse of legal procedures.
Furthermore, B.H. pointed out that there are at least six units on the second floor, six units on the third floor, at least one occupant in the basement, in addition to the first-floor tenant, totaling at least 14 units, far exceeding the landlord’s claim of a “two-family residence.” According to the law: as long as a building has six or more residential units, it is subject to rent stabilization laws, even if some units are unlawfully converted.
Therefore, the tenants argued that they are rent-stabilized tenants, and the landlord cannot evict them arbitrarily; the landlord must provide valid reasons and follow due process.
Moreover, B.H. pointed out that the Certificate of Occupancy for the building issued in 1964 does not match the actual usage, and the landlord did not obtain proper certification, thus, the landlord has no right to collect rent from the tenants. B.H. requested that the court dismiss the entire eviction case and confirm their status as rent-stabilized tenants.
After the court hearing at the end of January 2026, both parties agreed to delay and enter into negotiations. Following several rounds of discussions, landlord Ye and tenant B.H. reached a settlement agreement on February 25. According to the agreement, B.H. agreed to drop all defenses against the eviction process and vacate the premises by September 30, 2026, with no right to return or claim any possession thereafter.
The agreement stipulated that the landlord could immediately obtain a possession judgment and issue an eviction order, but the execution would be delayed until the end of the relocation deadline, with the earliest eviction date set for October 1. In exchange for the tenant’s promise to vacate on time, the landlord agreed conditionally to waive all rent arrears up to February 28, 2026, and usage fees prior to relocation, but if the tenant fails to vacate as scheduled, all arrears will be reclaimed, and the eviction order will take immediate effect. On March 12, the court officially issued a possession judgment, ruling in favor of the landlord and issuing the eviction order, with execution postponed to October 2026 as per the agreement.