Opinion
No. 15–391.
10-22-2015
Lee CHEN, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Lawrence RAY, Respondent–Appellant, and John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s), Respondents.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Final judgment (Sabrina B Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2015, affirmed, with $25 costs.
We sustain the possessory judgment awarded to petitioner upon the trial of this holdover proceeding. A fair interpretation of the evidence supports a finding that respondent was a mere licensee whose license to occupy the premises was revoked, and he has no right to continued possession (see RPAPL 7137 ). Respondent waived any defense based upon petitioner's alleged lack of standing to maintain this proceeding, since respondent failed to raise that defense either in his answer or by way of a preanswer motion (see see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239 2007 ). In any event, the documentary evidence submitted established that petitioner was entitled to maintain this proceeding as “the person entitled to possession of the property at the time of the license” (RPAPL 7137 ).
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request for an adjournment of this matter (see Cohen v. Cohen, 120 AD3d 1060, 1063 2014, lv denied 24 NY3d 909 2014 ), where the delays already caused by respondent in this proceeding resulted in a previous declaration of a mistrial (see Scarola v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 154 A.D.2d 364 1989 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.