4960 Broadway LLC v Molina

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

4960 Broadway LLC v Molina 2019 NY Slip Op 33892(U) December 4, 2019 Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County Docket Number: 82220/15 Judge: Anne Katz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] CCMIIOURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORI< COUN OF NEW YORK: HOUSING PART R ------- -" 4960 B OADWAY LLC C/O sdL GOLDMAN INVEST MENTS LLC, PetitionrrLandlord. -again!t- Index No.: L&T 8222flfl:" DECISlON/ORDJi~ WASH NGTON MOLINA All<IA WASHJNGTON A. MOLINA Respondt'ntT enant and DIEGO MOLINA, NANCY REVES, "JOHN DOE" AND "JA E DOE"' RapondenbUndertenanB. -------------·--------·- -x HON. ANNE KATZ: In this holdtwcr proceeding petitioner seeks pos~ion of 4960 Broadw<Jy, Apartment 4H, New York, New York 10034 ("premi!'cs").The premises are subject ro the Rent St::ibi'izctjon Law of 1969, a~ amended. Petitioner· alleges that respondent wa,hingtott \fofi.m1 e:'Jdn Washington A Molina ("rcspondenf1 bas held over and continues in possession of th~ premise:, without the permission of petitioner. Petitioner demanded that respondent vacate the premiS'!'!s b. · September 30, 2015 pursuant to a "Notice To Tenant PUTS"uant to Rent Stabifization C'1d~ C'RSC") Section 2524 ©of Owner's lntentfon Not to Renew a Lea,.e Due tn the Grounds Se Forth in RSC 2524.4{c)Regarding the Requirement that the Tenant Oc~ upy the Housing Accommodation as the Tenant's Primary Residence and Notice of T erminati<1n and Jnfmtion to Commence Summary Proceeding•· f'Notice''). Respondent failed to vac,_.te and petitioner commenced this proceeding by Notice of Petition and Petition dated October 7. 20 I .5 Respondent appeared, by counsel, and submitted a Vt..-rified Answer with Counterd1.1ims dated Man::h 22,-2016 (..Answer'). The Answer alleged that respondent resides at the premises with his brother, Diego Molina ("Diego'') and mother, Nancy Reyes (" Reyes'). Respondent af~~:- a~5ertcd a counterclaim for Jegal fees. On August 18, 2018, the parties stipulated to E:"thibits (PTJ-(P5) and (RA)-(RJ). Additional exhibits were submitted into evidence at trial. Petitioner's Ca!e On its prima j{rcie case petitioner submitted a certified deed (Pl), Multiple Dl~dlinl! Registration (P2), DHCR registration (P3),original lease which commenced Scpte111ner J 6. 2003 (P4) and last renewal lease which commenced June 26, 2013 (P5). [* 2] Pecmon<r called respondent as its first witness. Through respondent, petitioner submitted a leclei datca Augusl 2, 201 S, from respondent to petitioner (P6). The letter requested pelltioner isl>ue rcl>pondt:n< a renewal lease. The letter alleged that petitioner was aw<ire respondent resided at the pr~m1ses with Reyes. The letter also seated lhat Diego Molina resided at the premises and rcsponctent denied that ht: sublet the premises. The letter stated the superintendent's drum that he only ::...:\!S Reyes and Diego at the buiJding was ..impossible" because Diego works from 5am lo 9pm six duys a week and Reyes does not leave the premises without respondent. The letter fmth<r stal~..1 I.hat superintendent is often ab~t from the building and it is not easy to obtam rcpmrs or 64:l pdper work done. Through respondent, petitioner submitted respondent's £.Z pass SU1l11,;rr.:.:nts from Sepcember, 2013 though ovember 2013 (P7). Initially thl! E-Z pass statements ~..:re i.Wuics::>eJ to responddll at 19 Spring Avenue, Bergenfield, New Jersey 0762 l ('•New Jers.:} addrc;)s") bur in September, 201:5 after servi~ of the Notice, the E-Z p'1$ statements were ru.lctre:.::.ed tu tnc premiS(!S. On cross examination, responclt:nt slated the premises are· his only rc;,id-.;n~. he never sublcl the premises and 11'! takes care of Reyes who is disabled. Re~-pondent h.-s1iii ....d that from October 1, 2013 through Septcm~r 30, 20 J5, the relt:vant time period, be shared a car \';1th his sister who hves in Yonkers. According to respondent, his sister drove the car three: or four tim«:S a week to New Jersey and that the £-Z pass charges do not reflect where h~ skpL Petiho11..:r's next witness was lorik Fejza e •f'ejza"), the superintendent who has been Gmplo)ed :.1rn..c April 1, 2013. Fejza testified he resides in the basement apartment of the builc.liug which is six stories high, contains 47 apartments, stairs and an elevator. Fejza &estificd tha1 auring the relevant time f1ame he did not observe respondent at the premises ""very often" but did obs~ed anoth~ male, Reyes and her attendant. Fejza could not recall if he made repairs at the premises. Fej:za testified h.: works from 6am to 5pm swt:eping tbc lobby then from 6am Iv 7atll. checling each floor (for 15 to 20 minutes) and at about Sam he tends to tenants' compl-..ims. On cross e>.am.ination, fejza testifitd be cannot see the lobby from his basement ~p..u-tmcm, be "'orks from his ba.s<:ment apanment, eats hmch and drinks in his basement apartment and does not pay rent for the apartment. Fejza also admitted he leaves the building after 5pm. ,"\.cc.1rdmg to Fej1.a, he on}) saw Reyes a few times during the relevant time and when hr: we1it to tn.: premises Reyes was always present w ith an attendant.. On re-direct., Fejza testified t1c ~..!:; approxjmately 15 to 20 tenants tmch day. Petitionc:r rested. Ropunt11.:ut,~ c..~t> I Re->pond>:nt's first witness W(C) Glorya Cabrera ("'Cabrera"), a 20 year resident of the buikhng and rc:spondent's next door lk:ighbor. Cabrera testified she is disabled, does not work, is hvn.e every day, she is friendly with respondent and sees him once or twice a week. qabrera testified she notices respondent because she op~~ her door when she hears the door \to the! subjc:\.'.t pr~miscs op.m. According to Cabrera, she met respondent and Reyes when they fove-0 inio list: premises. Cabrera could not recall when Fej2a became the super bul aUeged :>hf onl_y set:::. him once: a .veek in the early morning or evening. Cabrera tes1ifo:d .Reyes was "_V~e~lchair boun.:1 but did not k.now how often she had an attendant. Cabrera also admitted that pcuho~_r has sued ht:r numerous times and has sent two difterent notices not 10 renew her lease. 1.:ross Ol I 2 [* 3] i:xaffurl<.lovn, ( <ib1c:ra l'1!!!1t.fied sh\! w~ injured in 2006, had surgery in 2016 for which she took pain!dlh:r~. m..:Jicatioru;. antidepre~Lo; and the injury hindered her ability to focus Cabrera "'las unilok o u:stify as to whether r<spondent slept at the premises. Respondent's next Wltness was Maria Carbajal-Sanchez f'Sam.:hez"). Sanchez was hi.:alm aid from June, 2014 throu8h February, 2017. Sancbe:z te:;tified ::>11.! woded atmv::.1 evc:ryoay, 24 hours pa day but duanged ha testimony to reflect she worked five days per wc:ck from ~run to lOpm and slept at the premi~ from Sunday through Thursday even though s h! \'lias ncu v..ork.ing. Sanchez ~tified she and Reyes slepl in the balroom and respondml and Oitb' skp' m lllc living room. She tesLifit::d that she saw respondenr four to five nights per week at 01c prc:mi~s tbar ~ are at the premi~ and helped to take care of Rc:}t:S. Sanchez restifitd tc1.1l •c:>fX>n.1c:nc ~ta:yed in New Jersey with his girlfriend one or two days per week. San.cha also i..::.tili~d li'Wt auotber aaendant v.orled with Reyes on Friday and Sarwday. On cross cxamiJU1tion, Sanchez testified that Reyes died in March, 2018 and she stopped working in h:bruary, 20 l ~ then corrected her testimony 10 rdlect she worked w1til February, 2017. R~yi:s· ttom..: Di~bo Molina (-.Diego"). respondem's brother, also testified. Dis:go testified that be movc:J 11no the premi~ with respondent in 2003 and that he and respondent ~lept in the living room wnik R\;yes and the attendant slepl in the bedroom. Diego testified th<it he saw respondent m Ihc mominc;,:> and evenings and respondt.'111 slept at the premises except two times a month \lyflC.(l he wou1~1 -ieave and not return". Di~t;o did not know where re~-pondt.'.Dt worked or whae he wt:nt wt1en h~ left the premises. Diego testified that respondent had a '·friend", Juana Gaby Luas, who livc:<l in New J~y but did 001 know much a.bout her. Diego testi.fied he worked in New Jc:rsc:y '1nd left the premises at 5:30am and returned between 6pm and 7pm. At first Diego ::;raU::d ill.A h~ ~as not home and ate dinneJ out but changed his testimony to state he, respondent ~d R\!}'CS ate dinner together. Diego tes1ified he saw Fejza one 0 1 two tim~ a month but did not :.p<a:... to him. On cross examination, Diego testified that he and Reyes mov~d into the premises in 21JO.!. he did not know the name of the prior superintendent and that Reyes had many <ith:nlJJilts but did not know who paid rbem. Evelyn Molina ("'Molina"). respon Jent's si:ter, also testified. Molina testified thar she li n:~ in Yonlt.~rs and visited resp-0ndent at the premises where he lives. Molina testifted that family gatherings were at the premises since Reyes was disabled but stated she did nol know whc:r~ n:spon<l~nt slept because that \\as ··~rsonal". According to Molina, she and resjf>ndcnl shared u C<:tT for which she paid the ~uran.ce and responden~ ~d the E-Z_ ~ass. Res~nt tt:stificd thm she move t~ car three to tour tunes per week which mcluded v1s1ts to her ~orhc!rs in l\cv. Jer~y .rnd her shopping in New Jersey. Molina testified that dwing the relev~ time frame s).e wa:; self temployed as a cleaning woman in Scarsdale and when she nced,i help r.::,pomknt hdped her with her cleaning jobs. On cross examination, Molina testified t~at she kfo.-:.,, JU4lna but could not recall wht:n she last saw her although she approximaied it w35 one 3 [* 4] Respt>nd~nt was the last witness to testify. Respondent testified that he moved into the pre-mb-.:s in 2003 and has resided there since. Respondent testified that he resided at the premises Di~go and an auendant. Respondent testified that he and Diego slept in the livmg fOOm wi<.1 Ryes slept in the bedroom with her anendant and that he and Diego each had a closet in rne dining room and Reyes kept her clothes in the bedroom. Respondent testified that he was inwilvcd with J uana and sometimes slept al the New Jersey address. However, he testified he diu not keep ctolhes there nor was his name on the lease. Respondent also testified that he took Reye;, 10 shOp in New Jierscy since there were parking spots; New Jersey is tax fr~ for clothes a..1ct he visited siblings who resided in New Jersey. According to respondent, he drove the shared car tO New Jersey four or five days a week and his sister used the car two or three times per v.ce :. Respondc:nt alleged that his E-Z pass staLements were initially sent to the New Jersey udd.r~ss bccaUs.! Juana helpe,d him pay his bills in 2013 and 'beginning of 2014 hut in the bc~innin~ of 201 4. Juana stopped helping him financially which he stated explained why Exhibit (RC) .and Exhibit (RF) were initially addressed to the New Jersey address. Respondent alleg<u tlwt in the beginning of 2014, respondent and Juana had a fig.ht and she: refused to cominu~ to pay rus bilb so he had his bins redirected to the pre.mises. Respondent tei:.tificd he 'iNas tl-. c pcrwn who comnnmicated with Fejza about repairs, stated he saw Fejza in the lobby, on chc street and once or twice in the basement. where Fejza lived. with Reyes t.t1c l. 2. Respondent sub.mined numemus documenlS to support his alleged primary residence at vrc:rnisc:s. The docwnents indudt:d: C~e Statement xxx.x2617 from November, 2013 through May, 2015 which listed respondent's name and reflected the su~ject premises as his address (RA). A relo·iew of the ~wlt:ments reveal that respondent did not use this accowit 'frequently with the traru>actions taking place: 'l!venly in New York and New Jersey with the pwchases in New Jer~..-y primarily at retail stores. Ch;.c;c: Statement xxxx 1305 from May, 2016 which listed re!tpondenfs name and the subject premises as his address (RB). These s1atements are not relevant as rdk~tt:d they are after the Notice was issued. · 3. Chase Statement xxxx8938 from December 4, 2013 through February, 20~4 which re.fleet~ respondents's name and the New Jersey address. The statements ~Of'll March, 201-+ through January, 20J6 retlected respondent's name and address at thej premises (RC). A review of the statements reveal that during the relevant time frame. card was not u::.t:d frequently and all purchases were made in New York or Ecuado when he visited his home country. th, 4. C'h<i!.~ Statement xx.xx7816 from June, 20 14 through January, 2018 wtVch listed respondent's name and rdlectcd the premises as his adches.s (RD). A revifw of the statements reveal that during the relevant time frame, the card was not used \frequently and more purch~s were lJlhlle in New York than New Jersey which the w JerSt:y pw-cnascs for E-Z pass or retail stores. j t>f [* 5] Ch;.i~ Statemc:nt xxxx9714 from November, 201.3 through May. 2014 (RE). A review of tile siz.t~m~nt~ r~veal that during the relevant time frame the statemencs contained the r~spond..:nt's name and the premises as the mailing address. A review of the statements ccve.il that the! card was nor used frequently, that purchases were made in New York. New kr:scy and Ecuador and the New JerSt!"y purchases were primarily E-Z pass charges or retail stores. 6. l'h..s.! 5tau;:m~nt xxxx9301 from October, 2013 through October, 2015 (RF). A review of the !)La ements reveal that from October I, 2013 through November l, 2013 the bills were <i J.res~ to r~pondent at the New Jersey address. The statements after November, 2Ul3 were~ to respondent at the premi~s. A review of the statements reveal th.u ill) cash withdrawals were made in New York or Ecuador, when he vii.itc:J his home counuy, and WC!re not frequent 7. Appl... Bank Savings S~ment., in TMit fot Nancy Reyes in the name of respondent, Acwwit xxxx0863, from Septc!mha-, 2013 through December, 2017 {RG}. A review of th;,; :..alcments reveal very tew transactions but all rook place in New Yorlc.. I). Appk Bmik Savings SLitem~nc in Trust for Nancy Reyes in the xxx.x)~96 from Novcmtk!r, 2016 through December, 2017 (RH). not rd~v'1Ilt a.s they are after tfu: Notic~ was issued. 9. Dcp.i.cunent of Motor Vehicles c-Notification submitted September I, 2015 which rdll:Ck:d the name of respondent at the pn."Jnises and Board of Elections stalemeot in the name of respondent, These statements are C ity of Nc:w York, which rctlcctied lhe name of rc;.pondent at the premisc:s as an active votc:r w..:> oi Occober 5, 2015. R~pondc:nt last regish:red to vote in 1996 (RI). Tlt~ are nol rcl1.:"<lllt as they are after the Notice was senrt.-d. W. Conf<li:;on Billing summ&y .tiom Nowmber, 2013 through Fcbrnary, 2016 which (RJ). r~fl-:cr:s n.~pondent's naaa~ ac the prw:mis~ 11. Dcpuelmait of Motor Vehicles Compass System which reflects respondents's name at the with a license as of November 2, 2015 (RK). This is not relevant as t.fiey are after the! Notice was issued. p.rc.:mis~ 12. T-Mooile Bill from July, 2015 through October, 2015 which list respondent's : l a t the pn:miS\:s (RL). These starements are not relevant as they aie after the Notice was rved. 13. ResponJ~nt's social security statement da1ed September 28, 2015 which lists res nclent as rc:..:ipient and the premises as his mailing address (RM). This is nut relevant a it was issued after the Nolice was issued. 14. ConEdison Account for July, 2012, April, 2014, December, 2014, January, 2015 April, 2015 ilirough August 2015 and through August, 20 J5 and February 2016 which ist the 1 respond¢nt on the account and the premises as the mailing address (RN). 15. Sta1emeillS from Ashley Home Fum.ish.ings from January, 2014 through May 2014 which rdlc:ct respondent and the premises as the mailing address (RO). 5 [* 6] On cross-examination, pe;:titioner submined a Google Maps picture which reflected the l'- 1..' \\ Jer::;c) residence (P8); and the deposition of respondent daled 1\ovember J , 2017 (P9). Petit:on.:r pointed om that although respondent testified his E-Z pass statoemenL" went to the New Jcr....c) .ldrucss bec&lS4.:: his girlfriend paid tht;m because he did not work . Diego and Molina both t~::.titiGd that respondent did work, with Molina saying she employed him. Respondent also pi.:.'> iously l~suticd that he used the car four to five days a week but MoJi.na testified that she also us.:-\J the 1.:ar four to five times per wed. On pcutioner' s rebuttal ca.se Joanne Kunda ("·Kunda") restified. Kwida is the principal of lnic.:rn.at1onal, a private investigation company and is a licensed private investi~tor. .Ku.h.da's N~w York State Private lnwstig.ator license was entered into evidence (Pl2). Kwida Ic::.1.1.fi.~d pcLitioner hiral her on June I 2, 2015 w conduct an investigation as to the residence of 1~_,po1uk:n~. Jn response to the investigation, a 1eport was issued on June 16, 2015 (PlJ). Kwida ~::.ta:'"d, .uiJ the report reflecred, that on Jwie 15, 2015 at 11 :20 am an investigator called rC!>j)Vndt:nt on his cdl phone and stared the caller needed to deliwr a P'dCkage to respondent. Kund<.& tc:srificd that during the call respondent identified himself as Wa.:.Jiin1'lon MoJina, stated h..! wo:. h.>me ai the time of the c:all and th< pack.age could be delivered to rhe New Jersey 1cs.s. Th~ report also reflected that respondent stated his wife Juana would be at the New Jct~y addres:1 if the pclCkage were <Wlivered later in the evening. Ktmda testified, and lhe report re!1ccu=d, ·mru when respondenc was asked about the premises, respondent stated Reyes filled 1h1:re. On rc-dllect examination, Kimda testifkd dial during a phone call with Reyes, Reyes s ..red llult r~pondent resided at the New Jersey address. 1<-ci:A.i.:> Amy Christ.ianson ("Christianson"), a resident of the building also testified on ~litiom:r' s rebuttal case. Christianson lesti.ficd she moved into aparl~ent 3.H, below the pr~~$. in 2006. Cluistianson te:;tified she walks to her apartment th.rough the lot.by. She !>;a1:d that she USc!d to sit outside the building IQ give cans to an elderly gentleman but never saw re!>pu.::aem Ju.ring the relevant lime period and only one time after. On cross e.xaminauon, Uuislia~n admined: she rarely goes to the fourth floor where the premises are loqated; she work~d from home Jwing th<: relevant time frame; and she took PhenobarbitaJ to treat epilep~J' and Claritr.n for allergies. . f~jLa also testifit:d on petitioner's rebuttal case. Fej:za testified he look Piftwes of .Juaua's M~ in New Jersey on April 26, 2018 (PJ4A)~ the respondent's car at the N w Jersey adan::ss on April 26, 2018 (Pl4B); and respondent and Juana's 4:iUS (PJ4C) at the ho in New Jc:rs~y on 1\p1il 26, 20) 8. l>i!... u.s~i •.m uf ibi; Evidence a.s it appUe1> to the tuw A.ft:! consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidence, this Court mds that p~Ii.i01.~r oid 11ot meet its burden and establish by a prepondernnce o~ evidence ~t ·pondent did uol m'-i.uain his primary residence at the premises. More sp;c1fo.:aJly, petition did not pco\ ~ thal n:spvndent did not reside at the premises for an aggregate of less that 183. 'ys each yccr <ll1rin.; th... rdc:vam time frame. The Rent Stabilization Code §252-l.4(c) requ1 s that a pre:a.;::;cs b~ ll!it:d by a tenant a!i a primary residem:e and . authorizes " hmdlorJ .' re~over p.:>ss-:ssiun of premises when such premises are not occupied by the lenant, as his primary 6 j [* 7] r~s1al':n~o:. as d c 1ermined by a c ourt of c . . . . . showing. hy " preponderan f lh ~mpett:nt JUnsd1ct1on. fhe landlord has the burdc:n of prirr•.._·: r~siocnce and 00 si~el: f e evid~nce _rhat th~ cenan1 di<l not use 1h~ pre.mises as a Up.nm. 5 NYJ d 38/l 838 "IE~d ~for must b~ shown tor the landlord to prevail. Glenbriar v 6 lanuhml ~ t:vidence ·and d~ , ~ 5. BO./ NYS2d 719 (Cl. APP_· 1005).. The tenant may rebut lhe "'~ -· Ro. A . . , . . monslrate that there was a substantial physical nexus 10 the premises . .H' • , ....<; .>.we tu/es. supra. . Re~pon~c:nfs E-Z pass records are not probati'ic as to where respondent resided since it was un~ohC.i<tdtch.-d · h M ohna · and both ·mdiv1duals · . . that h.. ... s hare· d the car w1r d1ove the car 10 · cw Jci:sey to v1s1t rdati\-es and shop at retail stores. The E-Z pass records were also wueliable :.15 tnc\.' wer· no1 · · ed , and there was nor was there any tesrimorual evidence to explain ; ..: autht:ntlcat tnc r~cords. . It was undisputed that respondent had a girlfriend in New Jersey who he visited and sv1~elun..:s sw.yed with. The docwnentary evidence supports respondent's testimony rhat he rc::.1ded at th.c prt:mises and did retail shopping in New Jersey where there is no tax. A review of Ct~ S~t:m..:nts from November, 2013 through May, 2015 (RA) conlain respondent's name at th.~ prem1£c::. and demonstrate the u:ansaclioru; made in cw Jersey Wc.7e for re&aiJ purchases; C~ Sutcments from June, 2014 through January, 2018 1 (RD) contain respondent's name at he pr~mi:><s .md dt:monstrare the transactions in New Jersey were for E-Z pass or for retail purchase::.; Cha:i.c Statements from November, 2013 1Juough May. 2014 (RE) c-0ntain r~pondent" s name at the premises and demonst1are the transactions in New Jersey were for E-Z f>3:.:s or retail purchases. Although some of respondent's earlier E-Z pru.s sratements lUld credit crud bills ~<re addressed to a respondent at the New Jersey address, respondenr credibly testifit:d JlWTI~ hdpc:d him pay bills until they got into a fight at the end of2013/be~g of2014. P..:titioner' s ·witnesses were unable to credibly establish that respondent did not reside ar lh.: piemises ..as his primary residence. Fejza's testimony was vague and did not prove where r~::..,>vndcnt resided. The basis of fejza' s testimony was that during the relevant time frame he liu not or>~nie re:;pondent at the premises "very often", observed anothc:r male at the premises .u1.i 011.ly ::>Jw R~yes a ·•few times" . Ft:jza could not recall if he performed repairs at th~ premises an" 1.:sliti~d although he works from 6am to 5pm he eats huich, tah.-s coffee breaks and does So1ll~ \\.Ork from his basemem apartment which has no view of the lobby. AdditionaJJ~·. Fejza is .no• aJ\\a)S present_ at the building s~nce he testified he sometimes_leaves a~ter 5_pm. ~1c~ vague t..:sUJnOn) is not dispositve on the issue of where respondent resided as his prtmary sidence. Ro:;e ./'h so.:iales v. Srace Div. Of Housing and Community RerwwaJ, Of/ice of R11nl A min., I J 1 A£Jd /85 (App. Div P' Dept 1986). Fejza's pictwes of respondent's car at the fW Jersey a.:jjr(;ss in 201 8 (Pl4A-P14C) are not relevant; they were taken th.rec years relevant ti m-.: fram~. Kunda's testimony afao faiJe~ to p~ove respondent did not reside ~t premi s. Kwtda laci..1:d personal knowledge of respondent s res1denc.e and the docwnent sl1brmtted by unda was lxisc1.1 upon 4il'1 investigator' s report, who did not testify and only pertamed to an i lated date (June 15. 201 5) when the investigator call~ respo~de~t. Respondent's conversa.riof with the im.:~tigator .;ctually suggested respo~dent did n~t reside m ~ew J~rsey smce he said ~e may not b.: pr..:s~nt ul the New Jersey addres:> m the evemng but the mvesugator could leave tje package v. n h Jua.i.1a. Respondent's statement that Reyes lived at the premises is also consis.te t with the ou1sidele 0 nl)' October, 2013 through September, 2015 fall within the relevant time fra e 1 7 I I I I I I I [* 8] ... ·:-;11,nnm ....,11-..•:;s ~ 1 H'n While lhe e . _ br l~ohrt estahlishecl respondent had 1 ·Lh~ r.:port als c o nnec11 >ns to 1h~ New Jcn;9 '- es1a is ed that resp d h· d · . . ) .wk. r hri:"luafi"o'n· . 1 . . on ent a conncc11on:, 111 the prembcs m New · ... s es11monv added n0 I h 1 i.. • • • 1 t1 va ue at .ough she never saw respondent. she li1.ed on i11,.; llll ll t>\>r, one Hoor bcl -. ~ ow respondent. and teshtied she never walke, I up to the fourth floor. I I I This Coun also found respondent's witnesses credibly rebutted petitioner's evidence. (. aNcm door neig hbor. ered'bl ·· . ' who was a n·xt c: 1 y rcstltted that she :;aw r~pondenl at the 1 ; ·:ffJJ:,e:> once \ir twice a week . Sanchez, Reyes' attendant, who lived ar the premises from June, -Ul -+ . •hrnugh Febrnary, 2017. credibly testified that she consistently saw respondent at the ~lemi:>.::s ::inJ 1espondi::nl helped take care of Reyes. Molina' s's testimony es1abJishcd she: used ine. car f,) go to New Jersey, clearly the E-Z pass charges did not prove where respondent re~idc<l M.~n.·over . r~pondenl testimony was credible and supportt'.l by the documentary c•. idcn..:..-:. J h'-" do cuments included: ConEdison Bilhng swnmaries from Nover:nber, 2013 through Fdiruacy. 2016 which listed respond~nt'~ name in connection with lhe accowil for the pr1::mb.:s (KJ):ConEdi~on Accounts from July, 2012 through February 2016 which listed res;xmd.:nc's name in wnnectjon with th\! acc-0unt for the premi.st:s (RN); Ashley Home Fumishine-s from .January. 2014 through May. 2014 which listed respon~knt's name and mailing ..d res;, ~ the premises (RO);Chase Statement from November, 20 I J through May, 2015 (RA) _which lisl~d respondt!nt's name and mailing address as the premises and transactions evenly split bct\".ccn t-te\\I York and New krsey w11h New Jersey purchases at retail sto1es; Chase Statements 1rnm Man;h. 2014 tnrough January which 2016 (RC) which lists respomienl's name and address a1 th\; pre mises and aJI purchases were in New York or Ecuador; Ch~ Statements from June. 201 4 throu.,i.h January, 2018 (RD) which list respondent's name and mailing address at the pri.:mi~cs "'1ith more pwchases in New Y1>rk and the New Jersey pwchaS\.--S for E-Z pass or retail; Ch•c.~ Statement from November. 2013 through May, 2014 {RE) with the respondent's name ar.d th1.. maihng address at the premises with purchases in New York, New Jersey and Ecuador und the !..:ew Jersey purcl4ises primarily E-Z or retail purchases; Chase:: Statements from NMembc:r, 20 J3 through October, 20 J5 (RF) with respondent's name and Jn;JiJ ing. address at the premises with all 1ran.sactions in New York or Ecuador; Apple Bank Sa.,,mgs Statement, in Tmsl for Nam.:) Reyes in tht" name of rt:spond~nt, Account xxxx0863, from S~plember. 2013 through De~emlx-r. 201 7 (RG). I ConcJuslull B~d upon the tac.rs presented herein, the evidence fairly in1erpre1ed suppons a findinl! thm petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove that respondenr did nur live at the prt"mises as his primary r~sjdem:e anJ rh~ petition is dismissed. The parties may pick up their ~xhibits in Room 225. \\'mdow 9 with.in JO Jay:s. This constitutes the Decision/Ord~r of this Co~n. Dakd: N.;:w York, New York D.:c~mber ~ . 2019 I Civil o~ -1 of th~ Cit y Gi N !!ft' 'lt'-4 I~ Id/!/11 1'I ·,- . r·.. · ·: - I I i - ...... .,...• .,.... I 8 I I

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.