Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about September 10, 2001 (Maria Milin, J.) which granted tenants' pre-answer motion to dismiss the petition in a nonprimary residence holdover proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered on or about September 10, 2001 (Maria Milin, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, and holdover petition reinstated.

We find unavailing the tenant's contention that the nonprimary residence claim underlying this summary holdover proceeding is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, inasmuch as the landlord did not obtain a "favorable result" (Bianchi v DHCR, 5 AD3d 303 [2004] in advancing a contradictory position in connection with its prior, unsuccessful DHCR luxury decontrol proceeding against these tenants. "[T]he doctrine of judicial estoppel . . . [*2]'precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.' . . . The doctrine 'rests
upon the principle that a litigant "should not be
permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way
and then contend in another judicial proceeding
that the same fact should be found otherwise"'" (All Terrain Props. v Hoy, 265 AD2d 87, 93 [2000] [emphasis supplied]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.