Ahmed v Chelsea Highline Hotel

[*1] Ahmed v Chelsea Highline Hotel 2015 NY Slip Op 51577(U) Decided on October 30, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 30, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
&em;

Manzoor Ahmed, 570542/15

against

Chelsea Highline Hotel and Carlos Rosario, Respondents-Respondents.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated April 1, 2015, after a nonjury trial, which denied his motion to be restored to possession of the premises in a special proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL § 713(10).

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated April 1, 2015, reversed, without costs, and petitioner's motion to be restored to possession is granted.

Petitioner Manzoor Ahmed demonstrated entitlement to be restored to possession of the underlying hotel dwelling unit. The hearing evidence demonstrated that petitioner qualified as a "permanent tenant" entitled to rent stabilization protection at the time he was forcibly removed, inasmuch as the hotel room was rented to him for one-night and he requested a six-month lease shortly after checking in (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §§ 2520.6[j]; 2522.5[a][2]; see generally Mondrow v Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., 48 Misc 3d 95 [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Thus, petitioner had a possessory interest in the premises and could not be ousted without legal process. We find unavailing respondent's claim that petitioner abandoned the premises in the circumstances at issue, where petitioner did not surrender the keys and offered to pay for a second night of occupancy prior to the lockout.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 30, 2015