Sendowski v Pilzer

[*1] Sendowski v Pilzer 2015 NY Slip Op 50627(U) Decided on April 27, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 27, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570248/14

Janusz Sendowski, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -

against

Suzanne Pilzer, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from a "decision and order" of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), dated December 9, 2013, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a "decision and order" (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), dated December 9, 2013, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), entered on or about January 28, 2014, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), final judgment affirmed, without costs.After a trial spanning 12 court dates, Civil Court awarded a possessory judgment to landlord in this owner occupancy proceeding (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.4[a]), finding that landlord "genuinely intends to recover the subject apartment for the use of his daughter, Dorit Sendowski, as her primary residence." The court's fact-based determination on the pivotal issue of good faith represents a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Horsford v Bacott, 32 AD3d 310 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 874 [2007]), based as it was on such stated factors as the building's close proximity to both the family real estate business, where Dorit is employed, and the residences of landlord's other children, who were already living in different buildings owned by landlord on the same street (see Brown v Robards, 29 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51777[U] [App Term, 1st Dept, 2010]). "Civil Court, having observed the witnesses' demeanor and heard their testimony, was in a better position to make findings of fact on the issue of good faith, especially as the issue rested in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Powers v Babic, 177 AD2d 432, 432 [1991]).

Nor do we find any basis to disturb the trial court's express finding that tenant did not meet her burden of proof on her affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction.

We have considered tenant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: April 27, 2015