Village Development Assocsiates, L. L. C. v. Walker

282 A.D.2d 369, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 369 (Village Development Assocsiates, L. L. C. v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Village Development Assocsiates, L. L. C. v. Walker, 282 A.D.2d 369, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered June 19, 2000, which affirmed an order and judgment (one paper) of the Civil Court, New York County (Ruben Martino, J.), entered January 12, 1999, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the petition and awarding possession of the subject rent-controlled apartment to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The duly credited trial evidence did not adequately support the allegations of the petition to the effect that respondent did not reside primarily in the subject rent-controlled apartment. Indeed, the evidence, including testimony respecting respondent’s presence at the apartment, and documentary proof of respondent’s voter registration, bank accounts, and mail received at the apartment, demonstrated that respondent maintained a substantial physical nexus with the apartment for actual living purposes (see, 9 NYCRR 2200.3 |j]; 300 E. 34th St. Co. v Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50; Cox v J.D. Realty Assocs., 217 AD2d 179, 184). While respondent’s tax return was filed from a different address, in New Jersey, a tenant’s address as designated on her tax return is merely one of many factors to be considered in determining primary residence; it is not a controlling factor (see, 9 NYCRR 2200.3 |j]). The consequence of such filing is a matter for the taxing authorities, not this Court. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

92 Cooper Assoc., LLC v. Roughton-Hester
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
47 HK Realty, LLC v. O'Leary
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Goldman v. Davis
49 Misc. 3d 16 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sang Kim Nguyen v. Tran
126 A.D.3d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Ansonia Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Unwin
47 Misc. 3d 28 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
1504 Associates, L.P. v. Wescott
41 Misc. 3d 6 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
111 Realty Co. v. Sulkowska
21 Misc. 3d 53 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Tabak v. Steele
8 Misc. 3d 78 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Glenbriar Co. v. Lipsman
11 A.D.3d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Chelsmore Apts., L. L. C. v. Garcia
189 Misc. 2d 542 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 369, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-development-assocsiates-l-l-c-v-walker-nyappdiv-2001.