PRIMARILY RESIDED IN CONNECTICUT
When a NYC landlord brought a non-primary residence holdover proceeding against its tenant, R. Singer, the latter claimed she was absent from the unit due to “business travel,” and her need to be outside of the NYC area due to “health issues,” and for “medical treatment.”
When a New York County Housing Court Judge found against her, Singer appealed.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Term, First Department, thought the case was appropriately decided. In addition to deferring to the trial court’s credibility assessments, the AT1 noted the evidence showed “minimal electricity usage” at the apartment in dispute, and that the tenant spent significant chunks of time at her Connecticut home (which she co-owned with her husband and is where the latter lived), and also traveled extensively “overseas.”
The AT1 found that the trial court correctly discredited the “business travel” argument, because the tenant’s tax returns showed “zero dollars in wages and earnings,” and was not otherwise reinforced by “one iota of evidence.” Similarly, her “medical treatment” contentions also suffered from a dearth of evidentiary support.
Did this Singer sing the wrong tune?
# # #