Surveillance Tapes Showed Tenant Not in Apartment

LVT Number: 18900

(Decision submitted by Sally E. Unger of the Manhattan law firm of Kossoff & Unger, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nonprimary residence. Landlord claimed that tenant lived in Riverdale with his ex-wife, not in the Manhattan apartment. Tenant and his wife operated a business there and had a joint bank account. Tenant also had a Con Edison account at the Riverdale apartment since 2003. Tenant claimed that he lived in the Manhattan apartment and that his parents lived there with him. The court ruled for landlord.

(Decision submitted by Sally E. Unger of the Manhattan law firm of Kossoff & Unger, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nonprimary residence. Landlord claimed that tenant lived in Riverdale with his ex-wife, not in the Manhattan apartment. Tenant and his wife operated a business there and had a joint bank account. Tenant also had a Con Edison account at the Riverdale apartment since 2003. Tenant claimed that he lived in the Manhattan apartment and that his parents lived there with him. The court ruled for landlord. The building's super credibly testified that he hadn't seen tenant at the building in some time, but that other people had been living in the apartment. Video surveillance tapes of the apartment entry door showed that tenant and his parents spent only eight nights at the apartment during the entire 140-day period of surveillance.

324-326 LLC v. Liu: Index No. 88195/05 (Civ. Ct. NY 5/1/06; Lansden, J) [17-pg. doc.]

Downloads

88195-05.pdf877.7 KB