ST Owner LP v Adams

[*1] ST Owner LP v Adams 2010 NY Slip Op 50935(U) [27 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 25, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 25, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570762/09.

ST Owner LP, Petitioner-Landlord-

against

Carmen A. Adams and Yolanda Aponte, Respondents-Tenants, -and- "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants-Appellants. Respondent Anthony Risicato, sued herein as "John Doe,"

appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered July 20, 2009, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner-landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered July 20, 2009, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that appellant-undertenant failed to demonstrate entitlement to a traverse hearing on the issue of service of the underlying notice of nonrenewal and notice of petition and petition. Service of the notice of nonrenewal on the rent stabilized tenants was sufficient to serve as a predicate for this holdover summary proceeding, and this irrespective of whether service was separately made on appellant-undertenant (see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 16 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]; 170 W. 85th St. Tenants Assn. v Cruz, 173 AD2d 338, 339 [1991]). With respect to service of the notice of petition and petition, even assuming appellant did not waive his objection to such service, his unsworn and conclusory assertions that he was not properly served were insufficient to rebut the affidavit of petitioner's process server (see Manhattan Sav. Bank v Kohen,231 AD2d 499 [1996], lv denied 91 NY2d 802 [1997]; Clarkson Arms, Inc. v Arabatiz, NYLJ, July 3, 1991, at 23, col 6 [App Term, lst Dept]; cf. NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459 [2004]). In affirming the possessory judgment in petitioner's favor, we note the absence on appeal of any objection to the trial court's rejection of appellant's succession defense.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 25, 2010