OWNER JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON JUDGE’S PRE-TRIAL RULING
When it brought a nonprimary residence proceeding against B.B, its regulated tenant, the latter alleged that while on a trip in Mali, he became ill, and that he hadn’t been able to return to the USA due to that illness. While the tenant further claimed that that he "intends to return to New York as soon as he can," in the interim, his answer alleged that D.T., his nephew, was entitled to “succeed” to the unit.
Before the trial’s start, the New York County Housing Part Judge noted her belief that B.B. “gave up up his rights. He is no longer the tenant of record ... because he's relinquished his tenancy ... and is no longer part of this case ... done, [e]nd of story, [n]ot revisiting that." Yet, interestingly, after trial, the judge ended up tossing the case, because the landlord hadn’t proven that BB had permanently vacated, or did not primarily reside in, the unit.
Based on the court’s pre-trial ruling, which limited the hearing’s scope to D.T.’s succession claim, the landlord appealed to the Appellate Term, First Department, which agreed that the owner’s reliance on the judge’s pronouncement was “justifiable.” It thus reversed the dismissal, and directed a new trial “as to all issues.”
Looks like they are going to be revisiting that, after all.
# # #
DECISION