86 W. Corp. v Singh

[*1] 86 W. Corp. v Singh 2017 NY Slip Op 51585(U) Decided on November 27, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570078/17

86 West Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Harbinder Singh, Respondent-Tenant, -and- "John Doe", Respondent-Undertenant-Respondent, -and- "John Roe" and "Jane Roe". Respondents-Undertenants.

Petitioner-landlord appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), dated November 3, 2016, which limited its document production request in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated November 3, 2016, modified to extend discovery to the period commencing September 5, 2010; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

There is no dispute that petitioner-landlord is entitled to discovery in connection with the occupancy issues raised by respondent-undertenant's succession claim. With respect to the relevant period of inquiry, we believe that discovery should extend back to September 5, 2010, a commencement date that will enable petitioner to effectively ascertain whether respondent primarily resided in the subject rent stabilized apartment with the now-deceased record tenant (respondent's mother) not only for the two-year period prior to her death on or about January 2015, but also prior to respondent's incarceration, the latter being of critical importance in assessing the bona fides of respondent's succession defense (see ALH Props. Eleven LLC v Vejarano, 38 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 27, 2017