Appeal by landlord from a decision of the Civil Court, Kings County (R. Birnbaum, J.), dated March 5, 2001, deemed (see CPLR 5520 [c]) an appeal from a final judgment of the same court, entered March 1, 2004, dismissing the summary proceeding.

Final judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this holdover summary proceeding, a review of the record demonstrates ample support for the court's finding that the conduct of Darlene Mullins Stokes (tenant), albeit rude and unpleasant, did not constitute a nuisance or a violation of a substantial obligation of the tenancy. The court's findings were based upon its determination of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal, and should not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Kaniklidis v 235 Lincoln Place Hous. Corp., 305 AD2d 546 [2003]; Protano v 16 N. Chatsworth Ave. Corp., 272 AD2d 597 [2000]; 5001 15th Ave. Co. v Klein, 2003 NY Slip Op 51128[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Tenant introduced evidence from which the court, as trier of fact, could rationally find that tenant did not intend to hit or threaten landlord's assistant manager in the building's parking lot and that the exchanges between the assistant manager and tenant amounted to a personality conflict rather than a threat to the safety and welfare of other tenants or to their quiet enjoyment of the premises (see generally Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117 [2003]; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]).
Decision Date: March 31, 2005