Riley v Ansis

[*1] Riley v Ansis 2010 NY Slip Op 51600(U) [28 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on September 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 16, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570248/09.

Jan Hudgins Riley, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Karen Ansis, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2009, after a nonjury trial, in favor of tenant dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2009, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The evidence developed upon the trial of this owner-use holdover proceeding amply supports the trial court's credibility-based determination that landlord did not have a good faith intention to occupy the subject Manhattan rent stabilized apartment premises as her primary residence (see Felix v Farber, 21 Misc 3d 145[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52538[U] [2008]). In a prior owner-use proceeding commenced against another tenant in the subject building, landlord asserted reasons substantially similar to those asserted in the nonrenewal notice used as a predicate for the instant proceeding that landlord wanted to live closer to an aging (now deceased) parent and stepparent, and wanted to live in Manhattan because it was convenient for her law practice and her legally blind husband. That prior proceeding was dismissed apparently on a procedural ground with landlord and the tenant of that apartment subsequently entering into an agreement pursuant to which the tenant vacated the unit. Significantly, landlord did not take occupancy of that apartment upon that tenant's vacatur. Moreover, the trial court was warranted in viewing with skepticism landlord's stated intention to primarily reside in the small, fourth- and fifth-floor duplex apartment here at issue, particularly in view of the physical ailments of both landlord and landlord's husband, and the lack of elevator service in the building premises.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 16, 2010