190 Claremont Realty, LLC v Ruderman

[*1] 190 Claremont Realty, LLC v Ruderman 2013 NY Slip Op 50815(U) Decided on May 21, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570886/12.

190 Claremont Realty, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, - -

against

Irving Ruderman, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, - and - "John & Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants.

Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered April 6, 2012, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered April 6, 2012, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Sabrina B. Kraus, J. at Civil Court.

We find no cause to disturb the trial court's fact-laden determination that tenant did not maintain the Manhattan rent stabilized apartment here at issue as his primary residence, a finding which rested in large measure on the court's negative assessment of the tenant's credibility ("It is clear," the court stated in its comprehensive decision, "that [tenant] will testify to any set of facts he believes will result in him getting what he wants.") The voluminous trial record showed and the court expressly found that tenant owns a "luxury" cooperative apartment in Riverdale, where he maintains a "regular presence"; listed the Riverdale address as his residence in documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service and Surrogate's Court; and spent less than 183 days per calendar year and used a negligible amount of electricity at the Manhattan apartment during the relevant time period. Based on the record as a whole and the above-cited factors in particular (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u]; Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519, 521 [1991]), it cannot be said that the trial court's finding of nonprimary residence could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1990]; compare
409-411 Sixth St., LLC v Mogi, 100 AD3d 112 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 21, 2013