Hitchcock Plaza, Inc. v Yamaguma

[*1] Hitchcock Plaza, Inc. v Yamaguma 2010 NY Slip Op 51884(U) [29 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on November 5, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 5, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570449/10.

Hitchcock Plaza, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Dazio Yamaguma, Respondent-Respondent.

Petitioner appeals from a final judgment of the Civil

Court of the City of New York, New York County (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), entered on or about October l5, 2008, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2008, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The evidence adduced at trial amply supports the court's determination, which rested in large measure on the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, that respondent Yamaguma established his right to succeed to the subject rent stabilized apartment as a non-traditional family member of the deceased tenant of record (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[o][2]). The credited evidence, fairly interpreted, demonstrated that respondent had lived in the apartment with the tenant for nearly 20 years prior to the tenant's death; that respondent and the tenant shared household expenses at least until the tenant's bankruptcy filing and subsequent illness, and attended family functions together; and that respondent spent substantial time caring for the tenant during the tenant's prolonged illness (see RHM Estates v Hampshire, 18 AD3d 326 [2005]; 25 W. 68TH St. LLC v Whitman, 20 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51610[U] [2008]). We note that the tenant's two sisters testified on behalf of respondent and corroborated his testimony that he and the tenant were life partners.

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 05, 2010