Opinion
570660/05.
Decided February 6, 2006.
Petitioner appeals from an order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated July 28, 2005, which denied its cross motion for discovery and interim use and occupancy in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.) dated July 28, 2005, reversed, with $10 costs, and landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery and for interim use and occupancy is granted.
PRESENT: SUAREZ, P.J., McCOOE, SCHOENFELD, JJ
Petitioner should have been granted discovery in connection with the occupancy issues raised by respondent's succession claim ( see Bromley Co. v. Rachman, 4 Misc. 3d 136[A] [2004]. Facts concerning respondent's residence, the period of co-occupancy with her mother, and the use made of the premises are peculiarly within respondent's knowledge ( see Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18; Quality and Ruskin Assoc. v. London, 8 Misc. 3d 102).
Petitioner is awarded interim use and occupancy as it accrues pending the resolution of the proceeding ( see Eli Haddad Corp. v. Cal Redmond Studio, 102 AD2d 730). Accordingly, respondent, within 20 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry is directed to pay to petitioner, without prejudice to any party, (1) use and occupancy at the rate of $236.62, representing the last controlled rent, accruing since July 1, 2005, plus $118.31 for June 2005, and (2) future use and occupancy as it becomes due. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.