Mautner-Glick Corp. v Glazer

[*1] Mautner-Glick Corp. v Glazer 2016 NY Slip Op 50090(U) Decided on January 27, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 27, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Ling-Cohan, J.
570981/15

Mautner-Glick Corporation and King Enterprises, Ltd. Petitioners-Landlords-Appellants, -

against

Haley Glazer, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2013, after a hearing, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter M. Wendt, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2013, affirmed.

The determination rendered by a hearing court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be set aside unless such determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Frost v Goldberg, 13 AD3d 409, 411 [2004]), especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Here, the hearing evidence supports the court's finding that landlord failed "to sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the predicate notice of nonrenewal was served." The witness proffered by landlord, who purportedly served the notice, had no independent recollection of the service in question, and tenant testified that she never received the nonrenewal notice at any address.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 27, 2016