257 CENTRAL PARK WEST, INC., pet-res., v. GIDEON ABRAHAM, res-app

14-291. 257 CENTRAL PARK WEST, INC., pet-res., v. GIDEON ABRAHAM, res-app — Appeal from “decision and order” (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered on or about February 6, 2014, deemed an appeal from the judgment (same court and Judge), entered on or about the same date, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and attorneys’ fees award vacated.

Petitioner, though the prevailing party in this licensee holdover summary proceeding to recover possession of a parking space, is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. The proprietary lease provision on which petitioner relies (Paragraph 28) is inapplicable, since that provision specifically limits its application to actions or proceedings commenced as a result of respondent’s default under the terms of the lease (see Dupais v. 424 E. 77th Owners Corp., 32 AD3d 720 [2006]). Inasmuch as the underlying predicate notice of termination and holdover petition were not grounded in a default by respondent of a provision of the lease, but rather were based on the assertion that respondent’s “license” to utilize the parking space at issue was “freely revocable,” and that once petitioner revoked that licence, respondent had no right to continued possession, paragraph 28 does not require respondent to pay petitioner’s legal fees (see Jo Fra Props., Inc. v. Bobbe, 81 AD3d 29, 35 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 933 [2011]; Jackson v. Westminster House Owners Inc., 52 AD3d 404 [2008]; Dupais v. 424 E. 77th Owners Corp., 32 AD3d at 722). We find unavailing petitioner contention that it terminated respondent’s license based upon his delinquency in paying parking fees and, so the argument goes, respondent’s nonpayment of parking fees constituted a breach of the cooperative’s house rules and, in effect, a breach of the lease. Respondent, however, has never been found to be in default of the lease by either this Court or Civil Court (see Horwitz v. 1025 Fifth Ave. Inc., 34 AD3d 248 [2006]). Nor is there any evidence that petitioner followed the procedure for casting respondent in default under the lease (see generally Maliner Colvin v. 85 10 34th Ave. Apt. Corp., 284 AD2d 434 [2001]).