26 Bond St. Mgt. LLC v Baumann
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
26 Bond St. Mgt. LLC v Baumann 2015 NY Slip Op 31238(U) July 20, 2015 Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County Docket Number: 65389/2012 Judge: Jack Stoller Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: HOUSING PARTH --------------------------------------------------------------- )( 26 BOND STREET MANAGEMENT LLC Petitioner/Landlord I Index No. 65389/2012 - against - DECISION/ORDER RUTH BAUMANN, JOSHUA EICHE BAUM, et al., I Respondents/Tenants. --------------------------------------------------------------- )( Present: Hon. Jack Stoller Judge, Housing Court Recitation, as required by CPLR ยง2219(a), of the papers considered in the revi w of these motions. Numbered Papers I 2, 3 Notice of Motion and Supplemental Affirmation and Affidavit Annexed 4, 5, 6 otice of Cross-Motion and Supplemental Affirmation and Affidavit Annexed 7,8 Affirmation and Affidavit In Opposition to the Cross-Motion and in Further S pport 9 Reply Affirmation Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion are as ollows: 26 Bond Street Management LLC the petitioner in this proceeding ("PJtitioner"), commenced this holdover proceeding against Ruth Baumann ("Respondent"), 1 respondent in this proceeding, and Joshua Eichenbaum ("Co-Respondent"), another respond nt in this proceeding (collectively, "Respondents")' seeking possession of26 Bond Streit Apt. 1F, New York, New York ("the subject premises") on the basis that Respondent is a tenant of the subject premises pursuant to the Loft Law and that Respondent docs not maintain the t bject premises as 1 Another respondent, Naomi Eichenbaum ("Respondent's daughter"), as withdrawn her answer and vacated the subject premises. [* 2] her primary residence. Respondents interposed an answer which, inter alia, d lnied the allegation that Respondent has not been maintaining the subject premises as her primary residence. Discovery ensued. Petitioner now moves for summary judgment in its favor. Respondents cross-move for summary judgment in their favor. The Court consolidates both! motions for resolution herein. Despite the fact that summary resolution of issues of primary residence are ordinarily not favored, Extell Belnord LLC v. Uppman, 113 A.D.3d 1, 12 (!51 Dept. 2013), both parties insisted at oral argument of this motion that there were no disputes of fact and, indeed,l he record on the motion practice does not reveal any material disputes of fact. In sum, the reco d shows that Respondent spends approximately twelve hours a day five days a week, and fik weeks a year at the subject premises; that Co-Respondent, who is Respondent's son, lives in tJ subject premises; that over the past five years, Respondent has rarely slept in the subj1 t premises, but rather at her boyfriend's apartment elsewhere in Manhattan ("the boyfriend's a[ artment"), and that Respondent operates her business out of the subject premises. Respondent has lived at the subject pr mises since 1978. Co-Respond nt was born in 1984 and continues to live in the subject premises. There is no dispute that do umentation of the sort associated with a tenant's primary residence - Respondent's driver s licen e tax returns, voter registration, mailings from a house of worship Respondent sometimes ha attended, utility bills, cell phone bills, credit card statements, various insurance mailings - plac s Respondent at 2 [* 3] the subject premises. j 2 Respondent is self-employed in graphic design, part1cularly having to o with the I branding of products. Respondent's business is located at the subject premisel Respondent works at the subject premises ten to twelve hours a day during the workweek, although she frequently has to meet clients throughout the Tri-State area during daytime hors. Respondent started a relationship with her boyfriend in 2008 . The boyfriend's apartment is located in a residential cooperative and he owns the shares appurtenant to thr proprietary lease for th boyfriend's apartment. Respondent' s name is not connected with any fcuments pertaining to the boyfriend's apartment. Respondent sleeps at the boyfriend's apartment on a near-exclusive bat s- At a deposition in July of 2014, Respondent identified only fourteen days out of fo~r-and-half years from January of 2010 through the date of a deposition that Respondent slept in the subject premises, although it is possible that there were more. 3 Respondent averred in affidavit in support of her motion that a reason that she and her boyfriend spent so many o their nights in New York City at the boyfriend's apartment as opposed to the subject premise was because Co-Respondent, her son, lives at the subject premises and they have more priv cy at the boyfriend's apartment, as no one else lives at the boyfriend's apartment. 2 Respondent testified to this effect at a deposition and, in a reply affirjlation Petitioner's attorney averred that Respondent "carefully constructed a paper trail" in an effi rt to link her with the subject premises. 3 Respondent testified that for one six-month period, she slept at the bo friend s apartment a' majority" of the time, although without providing as specific an ber as she did for other six-month periods. 3 [* 4] Respondent has drawers in one dresser and a half of a closet at the boy~iend 's apartment, as well as a toothbrush, shampoo, a bicycle, and some clothing items there. Respondent's routine during the workweek is to wake up at the boyfriend's apartment, sometimes at the boyfriend's apartment, but sometimes shower and exercise at the s~ower and exercise subjec~ premises, head to the subject premises by about 7 a.m., sometimes prepare and eat breakfast at tlie subject premises, feed and tend to her cats, work, prepare and eat lunch at the subject premises, and head back to the boyfriend's apartment in the evening with an overnight bag by about 8 to 10 p.m., coordinating to meet him there by phone or email. Respondent keeps the bulk of her clothes, jewelry, possessions, furnitul e, and toiletries in the subject premises, including cameras, as photography is a hobby of hers. R spondent does not co-mingle funds with her boyfriend. He is not in her will. Respondent's daug ter, who lives in elsewhere in Manhattan, is Respondent's health care proxy. While Responden has a key to the boyfriend's apartment and the doorman at his building knows her, Respondents boyfriend does not have a key to the subject premises. I About three weekends a month, Respondent and her boyfriend go to C, nnecticut where he owns a condominium, where they engage in various sporting activities and r bbies. Respondent also has occasion visits her parents in New Paltz, New York on wT kends. Respondent averred in an affidavit in support of her motion that she so, ializes with other residents of the building in which the subject premises is located ("the Building") including one ninety-two-year-old neighbor for whom she is an attorney-in-fact. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that Respondent maintains a rimary residence 4 [* 5] in a place other than the subject premises. Sharp v. Melendez, 139 A.D.2d 262, 264 (1st Dept. I 1988) leave to appeal denied, 73 N.Y.2d 707 (1989). Obviously, the only prospect for any other primary residence of Respondent is the boyfriend s apartment. However, not a single document links Respondent to the boyfriend's apartment. Respondent has no discernible rights of possession of the boyfriend's apartment. Petitioner does not dispute that Respt udent spends twelve hours a day and two hundred fifty days a year at the subject premises. Rent-stabilized tenants who spend less time in their rent-stabilized apJtments with much stronger ties to alternate addresses further away from New York City neverthe~bss maintain their New York City rent-stabilized apartments as their primary residences. See, J, Glenbriar Co. v. Lipsman, 11A.D.3d352, 353-354 (1'1 Dept. 2004), ajf'd, 5 N .Y.3d 388 (2005) (a New York apartment was still a tenant's primary residence when she spent six months ou of the year in Florida); 310 E. 23rd LLC v. Colvin, 41 A.D.3d 149, 149-150 (1st Dept. 2007) a house a tenant owns in Upstate New York used as a home address in certain tax-related doculents is merely the tenant's second residence that the tenant only used on weekends, holidays and r acations, not her primary residence); Four Winds Assocs. v. Rachlin, 248 A.D.2d 352, 353 (2"d Dept. 1998) (a tenant who owns a condominium in Florida registered her automobile there, 1 d had a restricted Florida driver's license still maintained her primary residence at her rent-stabilized apartment in New York City when she voted in New York, paid New York income taxes, pf sessed a New York State driver's license received ongoing care from medical professionals f New York, and kept her clothing in the New York aprutment); RSP 86 Prop. LLC v. Sylvester 47 Misc.3d 137(A) (App. Term l51 Dept. 2015) (a rent-stabilized tenant who maintains seasonal homes in the 5 [* 6] Hamptons and in Florida does not vitiate a substantial physical nexus to his rent-stabilized apartment where the tenant's most important documents, such as his tax retmns, driver s license, voter registration, and bank and credit card statements place the tenant at the rent-stabilized apartment); Ninth Ave. Realty LLC v. McKay, 29 Misc.3d I 36(A) (App. Term 1st Dept. 20 l 0) (the ownership of and weekend use of and vacation use of a house in Orange County, New York does not mean that rent-stabilized tenants are not using their rent-stabilized apartment as their primary residence when their rent-stabilized apartment is f'ully-fumished, they pend well in excess of one hundred eighty-three days at the rent-stabilized apartment and lere they maintain full -time jobs in Manhattan); ST Owner LP v. Ward, 21 Misc.3d 133(A) (App. Term I st Dept. 2008) (even when a rent-stabilized tenant owned a house in New Jersey and registered her car there, the rent-stabilized premises in New York was still her primary residence when she only used the New Jersey house on the weekends). The Court struggles to harmonize this authority with the proposition Petitioner asks this Court to endorse, that Respondent does not maintain the subject premises her primary residence when she sleeps at an apartment an intra-borough subway ride away from the shbject premises as an incidence of a romantic relationship continues to connect all of her docwnertation to the subject premises, and spends more days at the subject premises than tenants who own vacation homes in Florida and the Hamptons. The stray possessions Respondent has at the boyfriend's apartment cannot come close to the k.ind of furnishing that a second home logically requires. Petitioner argues that the subject premises is not Respondent's primary residence because she uses the subject premises solely for business purposes, which is not permitted. 6 [* 7] Ter-Arutunian v. Stahl Associates Company, .Y.L.J. Jan. 23 1987 at 13:1 (S. Ct. N.Y. Co.). However, Respondent maintains and feeds her cats at the subject premises, socializes with neighbors in the Building, including one to the point of being his attorney-in-fact, maintains and prepares food at the subject premises, and maintains the great bulk of her personal property at the subject premises, conduct which has nothing to do with Respondent's business. Moreover, as the subject premises is subject to the Loft Law, at least some use of the subject premises for commercial purposes is pemlissible. See Anthony v. New York City Loft Bd., 122 A.D.2d 725, 727 (1 51 Dept. 1986) (a dwelling covered by the Loft Law must be converted "at least in part" into a residential unit). Had Respondent operated ~br business in the subject premises and also slept in the subject premises with any regularity, Petitioner' s cause of action would be wholly devoid of merit. Accordingly, the outcome of this proceeding turns on the extent to which Respondent's failure to sleep in the subject premises for a wotracted period of time implicates it as her primary residence. That Petitioner' s case boils down to this issue inures to Respondent's benefit as no single factor shall be solely determinative of a primary residence controversy. Katz Park Ave. Corp. v. Jagizer, 11 N.Y.3d 314, 317 (2008), Glenbriar Co., supra, 5 N.Y.3d at 392-393. Be that as it may, a tenant who prefers to sleep at a friend's apartment during a refurbishmeht of the tenant's rent-stabilized apartment maintained the apartment as his primary residence even when the tenant himself prolonged the refurbishment. Ascot Realty, LLC v. Richstone, 10 A.D 3d 513, 513-514 (P1 Dept. 2004), leave to appeal dismissed, 4 N.Y.3d 842, 843 (2005). A tenant with two I rent-stabilized apartments that are used as one does not relinquish the one she does not sleep in 7 [* 8] her primary residence when she takes meals in that apartment, spends a substantial amount of time in that apartment, works on a novel in that apartment, and engages in craft and hobby projects in that apartment. 138- 140 Vil. Owners Corp. v. Dillard, 18 Misc.3d 111 l(A) (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2007). More significantly, even a married rent-stabilized tenant does not relinquish her apartment as her primary residence when she sleeps every night with her spous1 in his (separate) apartment, as she otherwise uses her apartment as a home, 224 East 18th Street lssoc. v. Sijacki, 138 Misc.2d 494, 499-500 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987) aff'd 143 Misc.2d 565 (App. Term 1'1 Dept. 1989), a proposition consistent with the law that two spouses may have two separate primary residences. Glenbriar Co., supra, 11 A.D.3d at 353-354 Rose Associates v. State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal, Office of Rent Adrnin., 121 A.D.2d 185, 187 (1st Dept. 1986), 60 W. 57 Realty, Inc. v. Durante, 17 Misc.3d 71, 72 (App. Tenn 1st Dept. 2007). If even a married couple can maintain two separate primary residences, surely Respondent and her boyfriend, who are not married and therefore may break up without having to litigate against one another, may have two separate primary residences. Consenting adults are allok ed to have romantic relationships with each other at a speed of their choosing. They may be close enough to spend every night together but independent enough from one another to maintain separate residences. And they are free to choose to spend their nights together in the re rdence where they have more privacy than the residence where an adult child of one of them lives. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has not met its burden of proving that Respondent does not maintain the subject premises as her primary residence. 8 he Court denies [* 9] Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and grants Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Dated: New York New York July 20, 2015 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
