In 44-46 West 65th Apartment Corp. v. Stvan, 3 A.D.3d 440, 772 N.Y.S.2d 4 (2004), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the potential of consolidating a summary holdover proceeding with a breach of contract action in Supreme Court, and noted that neither party alleged that the Civil Court was incapable of resolving the holdover proceeding, and had thus failed to demonstrate the necessity for consolidation (Id. at 442). In 44-46, the tenants moved to stay a holdover proceeding which was commenced by their landlord in Civil Court two years after the landlord had brought a breach of contract action against the tenants in Supreme Court (Id. at 441). In granting the stay, the Supreme Court found a "great deal of coincidence" between the two proceedings. The First Department, however, reversed, "given the distinct nature of the respective causes and the prejudice to plaintiff in depriving it of the appropriate recognized forum for a summary holdover proceeding" (Id. at 441-42).