Opinion
570231/03.
Decided April 6, 2004.
Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about December 19, 2002 after a nonjury trial (Maria Milin, J.) awarding landlord possession of the subject premises in a nonprimary residence holdover proceeding.
Final judgment entered on or about December 19, 2002 (Maria Milin, J.) affirmed, with $25 costs.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The trial court's determination that the subject Manhattan apartment is not the tenant's primary residence represents a fair interpretation of the evidence, and is not disturbed. Tenant, who has dual Brazilian and American citizenship, admittedly spends a significant amount of time with family members in an apartment in Sao Paulo, Brazil and, based upon the credited testimony of landlord's witnesses, the court expressly found that tenant's presence in the Manhattan apartment was "sporadic at best." Tenant called no independent witnesses and presented little documentary indicia of residency, acknowledging that for the three-year period preceding institution of the proceeding he filed tax returns in Brazil and only maintained Brazilian credit card accounts. Under these circumstances, tenant did not have the type of "ongoing, substantial, physical nexus with the controlled premises for actual living purposes . . . that would justify affording the tenancy continued protection under the rent stabilization law (citations omitted)" ( Emel Realty Corp. v. Carey, 288 AD2d 163), or so the trial court reasonably could find.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.