| UHAB HDFC v Munninghof |
| 2005 NY Slip Op 52013(U) [10 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on December 9, 2005 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Petitioner appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003 after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
PER CURIAM:
Final judgment (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003, reversed, with $30 costs, and final judgment awarded to petitioner.
In the absence of any claim or showing that respondent Munninghof's 1988 entry into the then vacant, City-owned building premises was under a claim of right, her lone stated defense of adverse possession is without merit (see Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 159 [1996]; Joseph v Whitcombe, 279 AD2d 123 [2001]). On this record, which shows that respondent did not continuously reside in the apartment premises, refused to execute a proposed "Homesteader's Membership Agreement" or to meaningfully participate in the homestead association's repair efforts, and routinely denied access to her apartment in connection with the present owner's building-wide renovation project, respondent's pre-2001 payment of portions of the nominal membership dues owed to the association was insufficient to confer any possessory rights upon her (cf. UHAB HDFC v Diaz, 2005 NY Slip Op 51975[U][App Term, 1st Dept]).
Exercising our authority to review the record and to render the judgment that should have [*2]been rendered after a nonjury trial (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), we reverse and award petitioner a possessory judgment.
Issuance of the warrant shall be stayed for 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 09, 2005