78 Havemeyer, LLC v. Abuzaid

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: April 24, 2020
• Docket: 2020 NYSlipOp 50452(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

78 Havemeyer, LLC, Appellant,

against

Hussain Abuzaid, Respondent, et al., Undertenants.

Wenig Saltiel, LLP (Meryl L. Wenig of counsel), for appellant. Brooklyn Legal Services (Gibb Surette of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gary Franklin Marton, J.), dated January 29, 2016, deemed from a final judgment of that court entered January 29, 2016 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The final judgment, upon the decision, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding based upon landlord's purported termination of an alleged month-to-month tenancy, tenant asserted, as one of his affirmative defenses, that the building in which he resides and two contiguous buildings together constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling that is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-501 et seq.) (see RSL §§ 26-504, 26-505; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11 [d]; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 792 [1988]). After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court, in a decision dated January 29, 2016, awarded tenant a final judgment dismissing the petition, finding that the premises is part of a horizontal multiple dwelling that is subject to the RSL. Pursuant to that decision, a final judgment was entered on January 29, 2016. Landlord appeals, contending only that the final judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered due to deficiencies in the trial [*2]transcripts that would preclude meaningful appellate review.^[FN1]

Upon a review of the record, we conclude that, contrary to landlord's contention, there are no errors, omissions or deficiencies in the trial transcripts that would preclude meaningful appellate review and warrant a reversal of the final judgment and a remand for a new trial (cf. Matter of Ernest LL v Rosemary LL, 50 AD2d 706, 707 [1975] [holding that an order issued after a trial in a custody proceeding had to be reversed and a new trial ordered because the numerous errors, mistakes and omissions in the trial transcript precluded meaningful appellate review]).

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: April 24, 2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1: By order dated August 16, 2018, the Civil Court denied landlord's motion to set aside the January 29, 2016 decision and for a new trial on the ground of transcript deficiencies. Subsequently, by order dated October 23, 2018, the court granted landlord's motion to settle the trial transcripts and to recreate a portion of a transcript for certain missing testimony.