From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Li Jen Yao v. Steele

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 21, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50788 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)

Opinion

No. 2021-10 K C

07-21-2023

Li Jen Yao, Appellant, v. Lesley Steele, Respondent.

Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A (Dan Ostrin of counsel), for appellant. Greenberg & Kaplan, LLP (James S. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.


Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DECISION

Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A (Dan Ostrin of counsel), for appellant.

Greenberg & Kaplan, LLP (James S. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT:: LISA S. OTTLEY, J.P., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Heela D. Capell, J.), entered December 10, 2020. The order dismissed the petition in a summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this summary proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10), by order to show cause in lieu of a notice of petition (see CPLR 403 [d]), against respondent, the prime tenant, seeking to be restored to a room in respondent's apartment. After a hearing, at which only petitioner was represented by counsel, the Civil Court dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner did not establish that he was anything more than a licensee and, more specifically, that petitioner did not establish a tenancy.

In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this court gives substantial deference to the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility, as a hearing court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 A.D.3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 A.D.3d 824, 826 [2008]).

We find that there is a basis in the record for the credibility determinations of the Civil Court, that petitioner was a licensee and not a tenant because, among other things, there was no meeting of the minds to create a tenancy, only a license for storage privileges (see American Jewish Theatre v Roundabout Theatre Co., 203 A.D.2d 155 [1994]). Since a licensee does not have "possession," he cannot "recover" possession in an RPAPL 713 (10) unlawful entry and detainer proceeding (see Qian "Lily" Zhu v Xiao "Joy" Hong Li, 70 Misc.3d 139[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50089[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Padilla v Rodriguez, 61 Misc.3d 133 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51471[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]; Andrews v Acacia Network, 59 Misc.3d 10 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

Accordingly, the order affirmed.

OTTLEY, J.P., MUNDY and VENTURA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Li Jen Yao v. Steele

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 21, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50788 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)
Case details for

Li Jen Yao v. Steele

Case Details

Full title:Li Jen Yao, Appellant, v. Lesley Steele, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 21, 2023

Citations

2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50788 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)

Citing Cases

Knowles v. 21st Mortg. Corp.

On this point, the law is well established that a licensee cannot maintain an illegal lockout proceeding…

John v. John

Upon a review of the record, we find that petitioner was, at most, a licensee, and not a tenant, as neither…