352-54 W. 48 St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v Rodriguez

[*1] 352-54 W. 48 St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v Rodriguez 2013 NY Slip Op 51921(U) Decided on November 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 20, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
13-201/204.

352-54 West 48 Street Housing Development Fund Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, - -

against

Neil Rodriguez as Executor of the Estate of Graciela Alfonso and in his Individual Capacity, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent, as limited by his briefs, appeals from 1) a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered March 30, 2012, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover proceeding; 2) an order and judgment (same court and judge), each entered on or about May 2, 2012, which, inter alia, awarded petitioner use and occupancy in the principal sum of $3,010; and 3) an order (same court and judge), dated June 11, 2012, which, inter alia, denied respondent's motion to permanently stay issuance and execution of the warrant of eviction.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered March 30, 2012, judgment (David J. Kaplan, J.) entered May 2, 2012, and order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated June 11, 2012, affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs, for the reasons stated by David J. Kaplan, J. at Civil Court. Appeal from order (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2012 dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment of that same date.

We find no cause to disturb the trial court's fact-laden determination that the estate of the deceased tenant shareholder breached the material obligations of the HDFC proprietary lease by failing to timely transfer the shares to a qualified individual and by subletting the premises to respondent, individually, without first obtaining the required prior approval. The record also supports the court's determination that petitioner's rejection of the estate's posttrial application to transfer the shares to respondent, individually, was for legitimate reasons, including respondent's poor credit history and his unauthorized entrance into the apartment without permission (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530,536-537 [1990]; Joint Queensview Housing Enterprise v Balogh, 174 AD2d 605 [1991]). We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 20, 2013