Opinion
No. 570908/15.
02-25-2016
Final judgment (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered July 30, 2015, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Arlene H. Hahn, J. at Civil Court. Appeal from order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated January 16, 2015, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.
Landlord, a housing development fund corporation (HDFC), seeks to recover possession of the subject apartment on the basis that tenant, after the building was converted to cooperative ownership, failed to purchase her unit. Inasmuch as landlord alleged and proved a cause for eviction other than the mere expiration of tenant's lease (see 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v. Grimmet, 181 A.D.2d 488 [1992], appeal dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 892 [1992] ; 80 St. Nicholas Ave. HDFC v. Lewis, 24 Misc.3d 134[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51473[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009] ), the requisite good cause for terminating tenant's month-to-month tenancy was established. Nor was landlord's delay in commencing the within holdover proceeding fatal to its possessory claim (see Schorr v. New York City Dept. Of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 10 N.Y.3d 776 [2008] ; see also 546 W. 156 St. HDFC v. Smalls, 43 A.D.3d 7, 14 [2007] ).
We also find no basis to disturb the traverse court's findings of fact, which in large part turned on witness credibility (see Holtzer v. Stepper, 268 A.D.2d 372 [2000] ), and agree that service of the underlying notice of termination was properly effectuated upon tenant in compliance with RPAPL § 735(1). In the particular circumstances at issue, the outer bounds of tenant's actual dwelling place must be deemed to extend to the exterior door of the building at which the process server's progress was arrested (see generally F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co., 41 N.Y.2d 794, 797 [1977] ). We have considered and rejected tenant's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.