150-18-28 Union Turnpike Assoc. v Board of Mgrs. of Vil. Mall at Hillcrest Condominium
Decided on May 25, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2005-1438 Q C.
150-18-28 Union Turnpike Associates, Appellant,
Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Kevin Kerrigan, J.), entered October 11, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed landlord's cause of action for use and occupancy in a licensee summary proceeding.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
In the absence of proof of comparable rental values of similar properties, the Civil Court properly determined that landlord failed to establish the fair rental value of the parking spaces in question. "When an expert opinion lacks factual support . . . it carries little probative value . . . and should be rejected . . ." (Shore Haven Apts. No. 6, Inc. v Commissioners of Fin. of City of N.Y., 93 AD2d 733 ; see Crady v Newcomb, 142 AD2d 940 ; Katz v State of New York, 10 AD2d 164 ; see also 1 NY PJI 1:90 [3d ed]). Here, the Civil Court properly determined that the opinion of landlord's principal that the fair rental value of each space was $175 per month, which opinion was not accompanied by objective facts, was insufficient to allow the court to reach a determination of the fair rental value of the spaces in question. We note that the court was not required to credit landlord's principal's unsupported claim that he rented 15 or 20 spaces at the premises for overnight parking for $75 per month, particularly in view of his previous testimony that he had never rented the spaces for parking (transcript, at 49). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed landlord's cause of action for use and occupancy.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 25, 2006