320 W. 49 LLC v Conliffe

[*1] 320 W. 49 LLC v Conliffe 2019 NY Slip Op 50106(U) Decided on January 25, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 25, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570219/18

320 W. 49 LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Jennifer Gonzalez Conliffe and Eric Blitz Conliffe, Respondents-Appellants.

Respondents appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered February 28, 2018 after a nonjury trial, awarding possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jack Stoller, J.), entered February 28, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

The trial court's determination that respondents did not meet their affirmative obligation to establish succession rights to the subject rent controlled apartment (see New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2204.6[d]), represents a fair interpretation of the evidence (see WSC Riverside Dr. Owners LLC v Williams, 125 AD3d 458 [2015], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 1221 [2015]; 318 E. 93 v Ward, 276 AD2d 277 [2000]). On this record, the trial court was warranted in concluding that respondents failed to establish that they primarily resided with the record tenant at the subject premises for the requisite one-year period applicable to disabled persons (see 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d]), particularly in view of the paucity of documentary evidence linking respondents to the subject premises, the lack of corroborating witnesses, the timing of their commencement of internet service and, notably, the DHCR form filled out by one of the respondents and signed by the tenant, stating that respondents moved into the premises in December 2015, less than seven months before tenant's death. Our review of the record discloses no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial judge, who was in the best position to assess the value of the witnesses' testimony (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]).

We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 25, 2019