5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn, LLC v. Caseres

5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn, LLC v Caseres (2022 NY Slip Op 50062(U)) [*1] 5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn, LLC v Caseres 2022 NY Slip Op 50062(U) [74 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on January 28, 2022 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 28, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ 2020-608 K C 5539-181 and 182 Prospect Park West Brooklyn, LLC, Respondent, against Miguel Angel Lopez Caseres, Tenant, Miguel A. Lopez, Jr., Appellant, John Doe and Jane Doe, Undertenants. Brooklyn Defender Services (Alexandra Dougherty and Anca Grigore of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Jeremy B. Honig and Erez Glambosky of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jeannine B. Kuzniewski, J.), entered August 2, 2019. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlord possession in a holdover summary proceeding. ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs. In this holdover proceeding to recover possession of a rent-controlled apartment after tenant permanently vacated, occupant Miguel A. Lopez, Jr., tenant's son, claimed succession rights to the apartment. Occupant asserted, among other things, that he lived in the apartment while growing up and had never left. Occupant claimed that he resided in the apartment with his father for at least two years prior to his father's vacating the premises in 2009. The trial court found that occupant did not demonstrate that he resided in the premises for the requisite two-year period so as to be entitled to succession rights (see NY City Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2204.6 [d] [1]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]). Here, the Civil Court found that occupant's testimony lacked credibility, and there was insufficient documentary evidence to connect occupant to the apartment for actual living purposes for the relevant two-year period (see 299 Assoc., L.P. v Mertens, 73 Misc 3d 129[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50932[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021]; K & L Chan Realty Inc. v Lee, 67 Misc 3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50415[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]). As the Civil Court's determination is supported by the record, there is no basis to disturb it. Occupant's remaining arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed. ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: January 28, 2022