Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

90 Elizabeth Apt. LLC v. Eng

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County

November 2, 2017

90 Elizabeth Apt. LLC, Petitioner,
v.
Betty Eng and STEVEN ENG, Respondents.

          For Petitioner: Santo Golino, by Brian ShawFor Respondent: Michael Mantell.

          Jack Stoller, J.

         90 Elizabeth Apt. LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding ("Petitioner"), commenced this holdover proceeding against Betty Eng ("Respondent"), a respondent in this proceeding, and Steven Eng ("Co-Respondent"), another respondent in this proceeding (collectively, "Respondents"), seeking possession of 90 Elizabeth Street, Apt. 5 and 6, New York, New York ("the subject premises"), on the ground that Respondents are licensees whose licenses have been terminated by the surrender of possession of the prior tenant of the subject premises ("the prior tenant"). Respondents interposed defenses that they are entitled to succeed to the tenancy of the prior tenant. The Court previously denied Petitioner's motion for summary judgment in this matter. Petitioner appealed the Court's denial of its summary judgment motion, and the Appellate Term affirmed, finding that Petitioner did not eliminate issues of material fact as to Respondents' succession claim. 90 Elizabeth Apt. LLC v. Eng, 56 Misc.3d 128 (A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2017). The Court held a trial on this matter on August 25, 2017 and September 19, 2017 and then adjourned the matter to October 6, 2017 to enable the parties to make post-trial submissions.

         Neither party disputes that the prior tenant was subject to the Rent Control Law and that the prior tenant surrendered possession of the subject premises by a stipulation dated October 2, 2015 ("the Stipulation") settling a prior proceeding between Petitioner, Respondents, and the prior tenant, captioned at 90 Elizabeth Apt. LLC v. Eng, Eng, and Eng, Index No. L/T 79147/2013 (Civ. Ct. NY Co.). Petitioner proved that it is the proper party to commence this proceeding and that it properly effectuated service of a notice to quit pursuant to RPAPL §713(7).

         Respondent testified that she is the prior tenant's daughter; that she has lived in the subject premises since 1971; and that she never lived anywhere else except for when she was in college.

         Respondent testified on cross-examination that she did not have bank accounts from November 20, 2013 to October of 2015; that she had no source of income; that she did not file taxes; that she was registered to vote; that she had a landline phone; that the Con Edison account for the subject premises was not in her name; that there was cable service to the subject premises; and that Co-Respondent, her brother, and another brother of hers lived with her at the subject premises but no one else.

         Respondents introduced into evidence a record of Respondent's voter registration, showing that Respondent was registered to vote at the subject premises and that she voted on November 7, 2006, September 15, 2009, September 29, 2009, November 3, 2009, November 6, 2012, September 10, 2013, and November 5, 2013; Respondent's bank statements mailed to her at the subject premises from September of 2013 through November of 2015; a mailer regarding voting mailed to Respondent at the subject premises in 2010; student loan documents mailed to Respondent at the subject premises in March, July, and August of 2010; an invoice for a veteran's hospital mailed to Respondent at the subject premises on March 11, 2010; a document concerning credit mailed to Respondent at the subject premises on December 2, 2010; and invoices from the online retailer Amazon mailed to Respondent at the subject premises dated September 9, 2009 and December 15, 2009. Respondents also introduced into evidence birth certificates for Respondent and Co-Respondent, which show that the prior tenant was their mother.

         Co-Respondent testified that he is the prior tenant's son; that he has lived in the subject premises from the time that he was born until 2000, when he moved to New Jersey; that he moved back into the subject premises in 2012; that he is Respondent's brother; that Respondent lived at the subject premises her whole life; and that Respondent is the prior tenant's daughter.

         Respondents introduced into evidence Co-Respondent's credit card statements and records of Co-Respondent's bank account from February of 2012 to December 21, 2015 mailed to him at the subject premises; Co-Respondent's pay stubs showing the subject premises as his address from October of 2013 through August of 2015; Co-Respondent's driver's license issued on February 20, 2013 with the subject premises as his address; Co-Respondent's income tax returns and W-2 forms for 2013, 2014, and 2015, with the subject premises as his address; and an invoice for Co-Respondent dated April 4, 2015 with the subject premises as his address.

         Co-Respondent testified on cross-examination that he returned to the subject premises on March 1, 2012; that he filed tax returns; that he had a cell phone; that the prior tenant was in a nursing home as of 2010; that the prior tenant did not return to the subject premises after she entered the nursing home; and that the subject premises has five rooms, three of which are bedrooms.

         Co-Respondent testified on redirect examination that the prior tenant wanted to return to the subject premises after she went into the nursing home.

         A neighbor of Respondents ("the neighbor") testified that her mother was a friend of the prior tenant; that she has known Respondent for thirty or forty years; and that she has been to the subject premises over that time span, where she saw Respondent.

         The neighbor testified on cross-examination that, from November of 2013 through October of 2015, she was in the subject premises less than ten times; that she saw Respondent there when she was there; that sometimes she assists Respondent in moving things and sometimes Respondent helps her move things.

         Another neighbor of Respondents ("the second neighbor") testified that she lives on the same floor as the subject premises; that she knows Respondent; that she has been to the subject premises, although less so now that the prior tenant and Respondents' father have died than before they died, when she came to the subject premises once or twice a month; that she saw the prior tenant often before the prior tenant went into a nursing home, at least twenty times a year; that she saw Respondent at the subject ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.