
    In the Matter of Elias Hernandez, Respondent, v Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Appellant.
    [67 NYS3d 472]
   Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 13, 2016, which granted the petition to vacate and discharge respondent’s recorded notice of lien seeking relocation and administrative costs, and denied respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition denied, and respondent’s cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the proceeding.

Based on the Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. (29 NY3d 45 [2017]), this dispute regarding whether the individuals on whose behalf respondent claims to have incurred relocation expenses were subject to a vacate order and/or whether they were petitioner’s tenants, must be resolved through a foreclosure trial, rather than a summary discharge proceeding, as the dispute does not involve the facial validity of the notice of lien (see Matter of Dock Props., LLC v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y., 156 AD3d 528 [2017]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.  