East Vil. Apts., LLC v Murphy

[*1] East Vil. Apts., LLC v Murphy 2009 NY Slip Op 52250(U) [25 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on November 10, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 10, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter JJ
570395/09.

East Village Apartments, LLC,

against

Carolyn E. Murphy a/k/a Caroline Murphy and a/k/a Carol Murphy, Respondent, -and- Alberta R. King, "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Alberta R. King appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), dated April 22, 2009, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment in a summary holdover proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Joseph E. Capella, J.), dated April 22, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In opposition to petitioner-landlord's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this holdover summary proceeding, respondent King failed to establish a triable issue with respect to whether she had any independent tenancy rights to the subject stabilized apartment. In view of the apparent deception practiced by the record tenant (respondent's mother) in, among other things, "switching apartments" with respondent without informing petitioner or the predecessor owner, and petitioner's refusal to issue respondent a renewal lease in her own name, Civil Court correctly determined that respondent failed to raise a triable issue on her waiver or estoppel defenses (see Riverside Holdings, LLC, v Murray, 2002 NY Slip Op 50176[U] [2002]; see generally Gregory v Colonial DPC Corp. III, 234 AD2d 419 [1996]). On this record, a contrary conclusion is not warranted by the predecessor owner's apparent knowledge of respondent's presence in the apartment or its acceptance of a limited number of agency rent payments on respondent's behalf. We note the absence of any succession claim.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur [*2]
Decision Date: November 10, 2009