| 2013 Amsterdam Ave. Hous. Assoc. v Estate of Almeda Wells |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 50084(U) [10 Misc 3d 142(A)] |
| Decided on January 25, 2006 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Respondent Shirley Wells appeals from (1) a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2004, after a nonjury trial, which awarded petitioner possession of the subject premises in a summary holdover proceeding, and (2) two orders of the same court, dated August 13, 2004 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) and November l5, 2004 (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), which denied respondent's post-trial motion to set aside the final judgment on the grounds of
newly discovered evidence (CPLR 5015[a][2]) and for a new trial.
PER CURIAM:
Final judgment (Cyril K. Bedford, J.) entered on or about March 8, 2004, reversed, without costs, and final judgment directed in favor of respondent Shirley Wells dismissing the petition.
Appeals from orders dated August 13, 2004 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) and November 15, 2004 (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.) dismissed, without costs, as academic.
Despite its express finding that appellant Shirley Wells resided with her mother, the tenant of record, in this Section 8 "project-based" apartment for at least two years prior to the tenant's death in August 2002, the trial court awarded petitioner a possessory judgment on the [*2]sole ground that tenant failed to list appellant's name as a household member on an annual recertification form. This was error, for the absence of appellant's name on the family composition document was not fatal to her succession claim otherwise established by the trial evidence (see Matter of Manhattan Plaza Assocs. v DHPD, 8 AD3d 111 [2004]).
Upon review of the record, we find no basis to
disturb that portion of the trial court's determination duly crediting appellant's testimony that she resided with the tenant for the requisite time period prior to the tenant's death (see 300 E. 34th St. Co. v Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50, 55 [1997]). Under such circumstances, appellant was entitled to continuation of the "project-based" Section 8 subsidy and the dismissal of the licensee holdover proceeding.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 25, 2006