Midway Hotel, Inc. v. Forestal

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 570480/25
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Midway Hotel, Inc. v Forestal (2026 NY Slip Op 50325(U)) [*1]

Midway Hotel, Inc. v Forestal

2026 NY Slip Op 50325(U) [88 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on March 17, 2026

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 17, 2026

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: James, P.J., Tisch, Perez, JJ.
570480/25

Midway Hotel, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Ronald Forestal, Respondent-Appellant, and Jean Forestal, "John Doe and "Jane Doe", Respondents.

Respondent Ronald Forestal appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eleanora Ofshtein, J.), entered February 3, 2024, after a nonjury trial, awarding possession to petitioner in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Eleanora Ofshtein, J.), entered February 3, 2024, affirmed, with $25 costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that respondent Ronald Forestal, the son of the deceased hotel-stabilized tenant, failed to establish a right to continued occupancy of the subject West 100th Street SRO unit, either as successor to his father's tenancy (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5 [b] [1]), or based upon a continuous residence in the unit for six months (see RSC § 2520.6 [j], [m]). Respondent neither called any witnesses nor adduced any documents to support his claims and the trial court, which was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, found his testimony to be "sparse, contradictory, and self-serving" (see Second 82nd Corp. v Veiders, 146 AD3d 696 [2017]; see also 300 E. 34th St. Co. v Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50, 55 [1997]). Indeed, respondent acknowledged that he spent most of his time at the Bronx apartments of his sister and girlfriend, and, at best, testified to only occasional occupancy in the subject hotel unit. In addition, as noted by the trial court, the documents he provided in discovery showed that "most of the charges from his accounts were made in the Bronx, including the withdrawals from his TD Bank account, that [*2]the deli and restaurant and stores he used were in the Bronx, and those locations were within walking distance of his girlfriend's home and sister's home, in the Bronx."

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 17, 2026