Kamvan Co. v. Rammel

Civil Court of the City of New York

Kamvan Co. v. Rammel

130 Misc. 2d 675, 497 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3259

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 Misc. 2d 675 (Kamvan Co. v. Rammel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kamvan Co. v. Rammel, 130 Misc. 2d 675, 497 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3259 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Richard S. Lane, J.

In this nonprimary residency holdover proceeding the facts are not controverted and both parties seek summary judgment.

Respondents have not physically occupied the apartment for over 30 months while on temporary but extended assignment from the United Nations in Vienna. There is no doubt, however, that they still regard it as their home, that they intend to return to it at the conclusion of their assignment in Vienna, and that they have acted accordingly. Their personal furniture and effects remain in the apartment; they have been in continued communication with petitioner; they have designated a responsible caretaker; they have continued to pay New York State and City taxes; they have not sublet to another; and they have acquired no other permanent residency.

Continued domicile is not enough by itself to maintain primary residency. It is, however, when combined with overwhelming evidence of continued residency in this case (Coronet Props. Co. v Brychova, 122 Misc 2d 212, affd 126 Misc 2d 946; 530 Second Ave. Co. v Gold, NYLJ, June 28, 1985, p 12, col 1; Melrose v Greenburger, NYLJ, Feb. 1, 1984, p 6, col 4).

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition is granted, and petitioner’s cross motion is denied.

[676]*676No lease is attached. The court is not certain therefore whether Real Property Law §234 is applicable, and accordingly respondents’ application for attorneys’ fees is denied without prejudice to renewal.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Richard S. Lane, J.

In this nonprimary residency holdover proceeding the facts are not controverted and both parties seek summary judgment.

Respondents have not physically occupied the apartment for over 30 months while on temporary but extended assignment from the United Nations in Vienna. There is no doubt, however, that they still regard it as their home, that they intend to return to it at the conclusion of their assignment in Vienna, and that they have acted accordingly. Their personal furniture and effects remain in the apartment; they have been in continued communication with petitioner; they have designated a responsible caretaker; they have continued to pay New York State and City taxes; they have not sublet to another; and they have acquired no other permanent residency.

Continued domicile is not enough by itself to maintain primary residency. It is, however, when combined with overwhelming evidence of continued residency in this case (Coronet Props. Co. v Brychova, 122 Misc 2d 212, affd 126 Misc 2d 946; 530 Second Ave. Co. v Gold, NYLJ, June 28, 1985, p 12, col 1; Melrose v Greenburger, NYLJ, Feb. 1, 1984, p 6, col 4).

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition is granted, and petitioner’s cross motion is denied.

[676]*676No lease is attached. The court is not certain therefore whether Real Property Law §234 is applicable, and accordingly respondents’ application for attorneys’ fees is denied without prejudice to renewal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 Misc. 2d 675, 497 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamvan-co-v-rammel-nycivct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack