Mr and Mrs Horsford sought to recover a rent-stabilized unit for their 24-year old daughter's use.
The Horsfords were victorious after trial in the New York County Civil Court, and on appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. But the tenant was so insistent that the landlord's case had not been made (because the intended occupant -- the Horsfords's daughter -- never testified at trial), that the dispute eventually made its way to our state's highest court.
Back on December 12, 2006, we offered the following prediction:
If the law is consistently applied, our guess is that [the tenant's appeal to the Court of Appeals] should result in a "trifecta" -- yet another affirmance -- for the landlord. We do not believe there is any reason to impose additional procedural hurdles and hoops particularly when an owner's testimony has been found to be credible and the governing standards -- of "good faith" and "genuine intention" to recapture a stabilized apartment for a family member's use as a primary residence -- have been satisfied.
As we anticipated, just a few short days ago, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the AD's decision.
A landlord's testimony as to the apartment's use (if found credible) is sufficient to support an owner's use claim. No testimony by the intended occupant is required.
For a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision in Horsford v. Bacott, please use the following link: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_01426.htm
For our prior post on the Horsford case, please use the following link: http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/2006/12/proving_owners_use.html#000280