Shahid v Estavez

[*1] Shahid v Estavez 2006 NY Slip Op 50912(U) [12 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on May 17, 2006 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 17, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2005-944 K C.

Abdus Shahid and Halima Ansari, Appellants,

against

Isabel Estavez, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents. Abdus Shahid and Halima Ansari, Appellants, Petra Carillo, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents. Abdus Shahid and Halima Ansari, Appellants, Sebastiano Guzman, "John Doe and Jane Doe", Respondents.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jose Rodriguez, J.), entered March 2, 2005. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed [*2]the petitions in three consolidated holdover summary proceedings.

Final judgment affirmed without costs.

Landlords commenced three holdover summary proceedings, predicated on tenants' commission of acts, including the breaking of their apartment windows, in furtherance of a conspiracy to force the premises into foreclosure. After the three proceedings were consolidated, the court below determined that the proof at trial did not establish the allegations set forth in the termination notices.

Landlords' proof of tenants' alleged conspiracy to force the premises into foreclosure consisted almost entirely of evidence simply that the windows had been replaced in the three subject apartments and landlord Shahid's surmise and conjecture that the tenants were responsible for the unspecified breakage alleged to require said replacement. Shahid acknowledged that he never observed any of the tenants breaking a window and offered no evidence even circumstantially probative of any tenant's responsibility for such an act. Although he offered proof that one tenant broke the lock on an apartment door, and following Shahid's criminal complaint, paid restitution, we do not find that such proven act established "substantial damage to the housing accommodation" (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3 [b]). Under the circumstances, the final judgment dismissing the petitions at the conclusion of landlords' case is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 17, 2006