Lincoln Guild Hous. Corp. v Ovadiah

[*1] Lincoln Guild Hous. Corp. v Ovadiah 2015 NY Slip Op 51691(U) Decided on November 24, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 24, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570734/15

Lincoln Guild Housing Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Isaac M. Ovadiah and Janice E. Ovadiah, Respondents-Tenants-Cross-Appellants.

Landlord appeals from those portions of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated April 30, 2015, which denied its motion to dismiss tenants' second, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and for summary judgment on the holdover petition. Tenants cross-appeal from that portion of the aforesaid order which dismissed their first and third affirmative defenses.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated April 30, 2015, modified to grant landlord's motion to dismiss the second, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and for summary judgment of possession; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs payable to landlord. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Landlord, a cooperative corporation, established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment of possession under the business judgment rule. The evidentiary proof submitted established that the cooperative followed the requisite procedures in terminating the underlying tenancy based upon some 56 separate acts of objectionable conduct by tenants, including threats of violence and verbal abuse of staff members and shareholders, sexually explicit and derogatory remarks directed at shareholders, and false allegations of criminal conduct against shareholders and staff. The record shows that landlord acted within the scope of its authority and in good faith to further its legitimate interests (see 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 [2003]).

In opposition, tenants' conclusory and speculative allegations were insufficient to raise any triable issue as to whether the cooperative acted in bad faith, outside of its authority, or for an illegitimate corporate purpose in terminating the tenancy (see Gordon v 476 Broadway Realty Corp., 129 AD3d 547 [2015]). In this regard, tenants' claim that two specific Board members "must have asserted tremendous influence on the other board members" to terminate the tenancy was based upon nothing more than speculation and conjecture, which is insufficient to deny summary judgment or permit needless discovery (see 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus, 39 AD3d [*2]379 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]).

We have considered tenants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: November 24, 2015