Inwood Gardens, Inc. v Udoh

[*1] Inwood Gardens, Inc. v Udoh 2019 NY Slip Op 50182(U) Decided on February 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 19, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, J.
570142/17

Inwood Gardens, Inc., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Charles Udoh, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from a "decision and order" of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated April 30, 2018, after a nonjury trial, which granted landlord possession and a recovery of maintenance arrears in the principal sum of $5,329.72 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a "decision and order" (Anne Katz, J.), dated April 30, 2018, deemed an appeal from the final judgment (same court and Judge), entered on May 7, 2018, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), final judgment affirmed, without costs.

Giving due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), we find no cause to disturb the court's resolution of the cooperative maintenance issues litigated below. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's finding that the maintenance increases sought by petitioner-landlord, a state-subsidized Mitchell-Lama cooperative housing development, were approved by the Commissioner in accordance with section 31 of the Public Housing Finance Law. Nor do we have any basis to disturb the court's calculation of the arrears resulting from tenant's persistent underpayment of maintenance charges over several years. The Court's rejection, as "not credible," of tenant's testimony that he did not receive notice of the increases has ample basis in the record and is not disturbed.

Tenant's arguments concerning the striking of his jury demand were raised and decided against him on a prior appeal in this case (see Inwood Gardens, Inc. v Udoh, 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51536[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Therefore, consideration of the same issue on this appeal is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case (see Board of Mgrs. of the 25 Charles St. Condominium v Seligson, 106 AD3d 130, 135 [2013]).

We have considered and rejected tenant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 19, 2019