Matter of Martinez v Umane

Matter of Martinez v Umane 2009 NY Slip Op 06289 [65 AD3d 480] August 19, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 30, 2009

In the Matter of Israel Martinez, Appellant,
v
Frederic M. Umane et al., Respondents, and Grisela Lajara, Respondent. In the Matter of Grisela Lajara, Petitioner, v Israel Martinez et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Neil Grimaldi, Bronx, for Israel Martinez, appellant.

Stanley Schlein, Delmar (Howard Vargas of counsel), for Grisela Lajara, respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), entered August 14, 2009, affirmed for the reasons stated by Seewald, J., without costs or disbursements. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Freedman and Richter, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Freedman, J., as follows: I respectfully dissent and would reverse the decision of the court below. The record, as set forth in that court's decision, raises serious questions concerning the objector's standing. Other than a 16-year-old buff card, there was no evidence that objecting petitioner Grisela Lajara lived where she claimed she lived, and there was substantial evidence to the contrary. Her failure to respond to any subpoena issued by respondent, a letter addressed to her that was returned by the post office, the absence of her name on the apartment lease renewal or the income [*2]certification form, which is part of the record, and the testimony of the managing agent and of the executive director of the sponsor of the building presented prima facie evidence of nonresidency, to which no rebuttal evidence was adduced.