Ninth Ave. Realty LLC v McKay

Annotate this Case
[*1] Ninth Ave. Realty LLC v McKay 2010 NY Slip Op 51985(U) [29 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on November 18, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 18, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570539/10.

Ninth Avenue Realty LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Charles McKay and Bret D. Silver, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents, -and- "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered May 20, 2010, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.


Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered May 20, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial court's fact-laden determination that the rent stabilized tenants primarily reside in the subject Manhattan apartment represents a fair interpretation of the evidence, and is not disturbed. Tenants' credited testimony, corroborated by several witnesses, demonstrated that during the work week they reside in the apartment, which is fully-furnished; they maintain full-time jobs in Manhattan; they regularly attend cultural events in New York City related to their employment; and they frequently entertain guests in the apartment. Notably, too, landlord does not dispute that both tenants spend well in excess of 183 days a year in the apartment (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][3]), and there is no evidence of any subletting (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][4]). With respect to tenants' Orange County house, tenants' credited testimony demonstrated that the house serves not as their primary residence, but as a weekend and holiday retreat. As the trial court aptly observed, while tenants "undoubtedly have a long term and deep connection to the [Orange County] house, it is nothing more than their weekend/vacation home." Thus, on this record, tenants' use of the address of the Orange County house on certain documentation, while relevant (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][1]), does not compel a finding of nonprimary residence (see 310 E. 23rd LLC v Colvin, 41 AD3d 149 [2007]; Village Dev. Assoc. LLC v Walker, 282 AD2d 369 [2001]; 300 E. 34th St. Co. v Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50 [1997]). [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 18, 2010

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.