Opinion
570772/08.
Decided November 10, 2009.
Tenants appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2008, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.
Final judgment (Peter M. Wendt, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2008, affirmed, with $25 costs.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ.
According due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings and to its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we find no cause to disturb the court's determination that tenants did not maintain the rent stabilized apartment as their primary residence. A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that tenants did not maintain an "ongoing, substantial, physical nexus with the [rent stabilized] premises for actual living purposes" ( Emel Realty Corp. v Carey, 288 AD2d 163), but instead primarily resided in Uniondale, Long Island. In this connection we note that (1) tenants were mortgagors on a mortgage relating to a Uniondale home, (2) the mortgage required tenants to use the home as their principal residence for at least one year, (3) tenants took deductions on their federal income tax returns for interest payments made on the mortgage, (4) the mortgage interest statements were addressed to tenants and sent to them at the Uniondale property, and (5) the trial court credited the testimony of landlord's building manager, which strongly supported landlord's claim that tenants did not use the apartment as their primary residence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur