The case G* H* Prop., LLC v E* centers on a commercial nonpayment dispute in which the tenant, BE, sought to be restored to possession after eviction. The litigation stemmed from a prior stipulation between the tenant and the former property owner, BS, which outlined scheduled payments and resulted in a final judgment and warrant of eviction. Following the eviction, the tenant moved to regain possession, arguing that he had not been properly notified of the change in ownership and was in substantial compliance with the stipulation.
In an earlier appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department reversed a prior ruling and remitted the matter for a hearing to determine whether the tenant had been adequately informed about the new owner and whether the tenant had substantially complied with the payment terms. Upon review, the Civil Court found inconsistencies in the tenant’s testimony, apparent alterations in his documentary evidence, and credible proof from the landlord that proper notification had been given and that required payments had not been received.
On its review, the AT2 upheld the Civil Court’s decision, emphasizing that factual determinations made by a trial court should not be overturned unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence. Given the trial court’s ability to assess witness credibility firsthand, the appellate court deferred to its findings and affirmed the denial of the tenant’s motion to be restored to possession.
Think the tenant got that memo?
# # #
DECISION