BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50537(U)

StatusPublished

This text of BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson (BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

BPP ST Owner LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Naishia Jackson, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Naishia Jackson appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered April 26, 2019 (Gary F. Marton, J.), after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover licensee proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered April 26, 2019,affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial court's determination that respondent Jackson, the daughter of the rent stabilized tenant, failed to meet her affirmative obligation to establish succession rights to the subject apartment (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[b][1]), represents a fair interpretation of the evidence and is not disturbed (see 318 E. 93 v Ward, 276 AD2d 277 [2000]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The trial court was warranted in concluding that respondent failed to establish that she primarily resided with her mother at the subject premises for the two years prior to her mother's June 30, 2016 vacatur, given the extensive documentary evidence establishing that respondent lived and worked in California during much of this period and the court's finding that respondent's testimony regarding her use of the apartment was "in the main, not credible."

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request to adjourn, made at the commencement of the trial, after her newly retained counsel withdrew (see generally Yuliano v Yuliano, 175 AD3d 1354, 1357 [2019]). Respondent, who had representation for most of this litigation (pending since October 2016), discharged her Legal Aid attorney after the trial date had been set by the Court, and, despite ample time to retain new counsel, did not secure new representation until a few days before trial was to commence.

Nor does the record disclose any evidentiary error warranting reversal.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: May 8, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BPP ST Owner LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Naishia Jackson, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Naishia Jackson appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered April 26, 2019 (Gary F. Marton, J.), after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover licensee proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered April 26, 2019,affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial court's determination that respondent Jackson, the daughter of the rent stabilized tenant, failed to meet her affirmative obligation to establish succession rights to the subject apartment (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[b][1]), represents a fair interpretation of the evidence and is not disturbed (see 318 E. 93 v Ward, 276 AD2d 277 [2000]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The trial court was warranted in concluding that respondent failed to establish that she primarily resided with her mother at the subject premises for the two years prior to her mother's June 30, 2016 vacatur, given the extensive documentary evidence establishing that respondent lived and worked in California during much of this period and the court's finding that respondent's testimony regarding her use of the apartment was "in the main, not credible."

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request to adjourn, made at the commencement of the trial, after her newly retained counsel withdrew (see generally Yuliano v Yuliano, 175 AD3d 1354, 1357 [2019]). Respondent, who had representation for most of this litigation (pending since October 2016), discharged her Legal Aid attorney after the trial date had been set by the Court, and, despite ample time to retain new counsel, did not secure new representation until a few days before trial was to commence.

Nor does the record disclose any evidentiary error warranting reversal.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: May 8, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BPP ST Owner LLC v. Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bpp-st-owner-llc-v-jackson-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack