Opinion
No. 570886/12.
2013-05-21
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.