Summary
In Rodriguez, the petitioner had been the tenant of record of a different apartment and failed to show evidence that she had a possessory interest in the apartment she alleged to have been locked out of.
Summary of this case from Bascus v. LakeOpinion
570346/18
10-19-2018
Amalia PADILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Maria RODRIGUEZ, Respondent-Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Order (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about August 21, 2017, affirmed, without costs.
The petition in this illegal lockout proceeding (see RPAPL 713[10] ), was properly dismissed after trial. Petitioner, the Section 8 tenant of an apartment located at 678 Academy Street, presented no evidence establishing that she had a possessory interest in the subject Fort Washington Avenue apartment (see Markun v. Weckstein , 100 Misc 668 [App Term, 1st Dept 1917] ; see also Viglietta v. Lavoie , 33 Misc 3d 36 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2011] ), and was a mere licensee of the tenant (see Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel , 20 AD2d 71, 76 [1963] ). Since a licensee does not have "possession," she cannot maintain an unlawful entry and detainer proceeding ( RPAPL 713[10] ; see Napier v. Spielmann , 196 NY 575 [1909], affg on op of Houghton, J. 127 App Div. 567 [1908] ; P & A Bros. v. City of NY Dept. of Parks & Recreation , 184 AD2d 267 [1992] ).