From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

190 Claremont Realty, LLC v. Ruderman

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
May 21, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

No. 570886/12.

2013-05-21

190 CLAREMONT REALTY, LLC, Petitioner–Landlord–Respondent, v. Irving RUDERMAN, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant, and “John & Jane Doe”, Respondents–Undertenants.


Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered April 6, 2012, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SHULMAN, HUNTER, JR., JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered April 6, 2012, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Sabrina B. Kraus, J. at Civil Court.

We find no cause to disturb the trial court's fact-laden determination that tenant did not maintain the Manhattan rent stabilized apartment here at issue as his primary residence, a finding which rested in large measure on the court's negative assessment of the tenant's credibility (“It is clear,” the court stated in its comprehensive decision, “that [tenant] will testify to any set of facts he believes will result in him getting what he wants.”) The voluminous trial record showed and the court expressly found that tenant owns a “luxury” cooperative apartment in Riverdale, where he maintains a “regular presence”; listed the Riverdale address as his residence in documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service and Surrogate's Court; and spent less than 183 days per calendar year and used a negligible amount of electricity at the Manhattan apartment during the relevant time period. Based on the record as a whole and the above-cited factors in particular ( seeRent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u]; Briar Hill Apts. Co. v. Teperman, 165 A.D.2d 519, 521 [1991] ), it cannot be said that the trial court's finding of nonprimary residence could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti, 160 A.D.2d 544, 544–545 [1990];compare 409–411 Sixth St., LLC v. Mogi, 100 AD3d 112 [2012] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


Summaries of

190 Claremont Realty, LLC v. Ruderman

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
May 21, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

190 Claremont Realty, LLC v. Ruderman

Case Details

Full title:190 Claremont Realty, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v. Irving…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Date published: May 21, 2013

Citations

39 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50815
972 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

Ruderman v. Doe

Additionally, Ruderman has previously brought two age discrimination cases, both of which were dismissed for…