Tenant Didn't Show Ample Need for Discovery in Case Claiming Illegal Apartments

Landlord sued to evict apartment occupant as a licensee after sending a 10-day notice to quit. Landlord claimed that the apartment wasn't rent stabilized because the building contained only four apartments. In response, occupant argued that there were at least six units in the building. Occupant asked the court for permission to conduct pre-trial questioning in the form of document production and inspection of the building basement. Occupant said there were at least four apartments in the building but she didn't know how many additional units were in the basement. Landlord objected to occupant's discovery request, claiming that there were no additional basement apartments but that she had converted first-floor apartments to duplexes that now extended down to the basement.

The court ruled against occupant, finding that she had failed to establish "ample need" for discovery in this summary proceeding. Despite living in the building for 10 years, occupant didn't report any observations of or conversations with people coming and going, the existence of six or more mailboxes and/or doorbells, or other indicia that the basement was occupied by at least two households separate from the four units on the upper floors. DOB records showed no indication that the building at any point contained any illegal units. The case was restored to the court calendar for a pre-trial settlement conference.

Chow v. English: Index No. L&T Index No. 302769/23, 2024 NY Slip Op 50006(U)(Civ. Ct. Bronx; 1/9/24; Lutwak, J)