[*1]
Northtown Roosevelt LLC v Bailey
2013 NY Slip Op 51652(U) [41 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on October 7, 2013
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on October 7, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570589/12.

Northtown Roosevelt LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Marc Bailey, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.


Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered February 24, 2012, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding, and from an order (same court and Judge), entered May 8, 2012, which denied his motion to vacate his default in opposing landlord's motion to vacate the stay of execution of the warrant of eviction.


Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered February 24, 2012, and order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered May 8, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

Giving due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings and its assessment of witness credibility, we sustain the possessory judgment awarded in favor of landlord on the holdover petition. In view of the demonstrated, unabated nuisance conditions shown to have been caused by the disruptive and anti-social behavior of tenant and his guests, the "safety and domestic tranquility of the other tenants in the building, to say nothing of [landlord's] staff, demand the protection of the law in the form of the eviction of [tenant]" (Frank v Park Summit Realty Corp., 175 AD2d 33, 36 [1991], mod on other grounds 79 NY2d 789 [1991]; see generally Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 79 NY2d 789 [2003]).

The record discloses no evidentiary error, and clearly none warranting reversal. The incident reports prepared by the responding law enforcement officers were properly admitted into evidence as business records, where the court redacted the hearsay portions of the reports (see Dawn VV. v State of New York, 47 AD3d 1048, 1049-1050 [2008]). Tenant's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved for appellate review, are lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 07, 2013