Lee Chen v Ray

[*1] Lee Chen v Ray 2015 NY Slip Op 51533(U) Decided on October 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 22, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
15-391

Lee Chen, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Lawrence Ray, Respondent-Appellant, - and - John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s), Respondents.

Respondent Lawrence Ray appeals from a final judgment the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2015, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Sabrina B Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2015, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We sustain the possessory judgment awarded to petitioner upon the trial of this holdover proceeding. A fair interpretation of the evidence supports a finding that respondent was a mere licensee whose license to occupy the premises was revoked, and he has no right to continued possession (see RPAPL 713[7]). Respondent waived any defense based upon petitioner's alleged lack of standing to maintain this proceeding, since respondent failed to raise that defense either in his answer or by way of a preanswer motion (see see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239 [2007]). In any event, the documentary evidence submitted established that petitioner was entitled to maintain this proceeding as "the person entitled to possession of the property at the time of the license" (RPAPL 713[7]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request for an adjournment of this matter (see Cohen v Cohen, 120 AD3d 1060, 1063 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 909 [2014]), where the delays already caused by respondent in this proceeding resulted in a previous declaration of a mistrial (see Scarola v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 154 AD2d 364 [1989]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 22, 2015