Samra v Messeca

[*1] Samra v Messeca 2015 NY Slip Op 50825(U) Decided on May 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 22, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570317/14

Eliahu Samra and Yaffa Samra, Petitioners-Landlords- Appellants, -

against

Jacques Messeca and Julie Messeca, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.

Landlords appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2013, after a nonjury trial, in favor of tenants dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2013, affirmed, with $25 costs.

After a trial spanning nine days, the trial court dismissed this owner use holdover proceeding upon its determination that landlords failed to demonstrate the requisite good faith intention to recover possession of the rent stabilized apartment for the use of their daughter Liron and her family, as their 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]), and is not disturbed. On this record, the trial court was warranted in viewing with skepticism landlords' stated good faith intention, particularly in view of the statements made by landlords' agent, in effect, that landlords were willing to forgo recapturing tenants' apartment for up to ten years if tenants agreed to "raise [their] rent from about $1,300 a month to $7,000 a month." In addition, doubts about landlords' good faith were raised by their actions in relation to another stabilized tenant in the building. Landlords had previously declined to renew that tenant's lease on nonprimary residence and owner occupancy grounds, but prior to the commencement of any proceeding, the parties entered into an agreement which permitted said tenant to remain in the apartment at a higher rent for three years and, once landlords recovered possession, they rented the apartment at a market rent instead of using it for their family member's use. Having observed the witnesses' demeanor and heard their testimony, the trial court was in the best position to make findings of fact on the pivotal issue of good faith, and and we find no grounds to disturb this finding (see Powers v Babic, 177 AD2d 432 [1991]).

The record discloses no evidentiary error warranting reversal. A sufficient foundation was provided for the introduction of tape recordings of conversations between one of the tenants and landlords' agent, where tenant testified that the recordings are a fair and accurate representation of the conversations and that the recordings have not been altered (see Grucci v [*2]Grucci, 20 NY3d 893, 897 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 22, 2015