Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered January 10, 2005, after a jury trial, awarding possession to landlord in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and from an order of the same court and Judge, dated March 11, 2005, which denied tenant's motion to set aside the jury verdict.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered January 10, 2005, and order (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), dated March 11, 2005, affirmed, without costs.

Although tenant's discharge in bankruptcy absolves him from personal liability for rent arrears which formed the basis of the within nonpayment summary proceeding, landlord nonetheless was entitled to seek tenant's eviction based upon the nonpayment of rent (see Dulac v Dabrowski, 4 AD3d 308 [2004]). Moreover, we reject, as did Civil Court, tenant's principal contention that the absence of a lease agreement barred the landlord from maintaining this summary proceeding (see Sacchetti v Rogers, 2006 NY Slip Op 51114[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). On this record, which shows that the parties' impasse over the lease terms was fueled, in large part, by the tenant's meritless claim of entitlement to use of the building's backyard area (see Meirowitz v DHCR, 28 AD3d 350 [2006]), the absence of a formal lease agreement during the relevant time period should not work a forfeiture of landlord's right to pursue its rent claim via a summary proceeding (cf. Haberman v Singer, 273 AD2d 177 [2000]). Nor does the record establish that landlord wrongfully withheld a lease or was "manipulating the tenant with the tenant's ultimate inability to satisfy a judgment and consequent eviction in mind" (Haberman v Singer, 3 AD3d 188 [2004). Nor was there substantial jury confusion such as would warrant setting aside the verdict. We have considered tenant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. [*2]

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: July 13, 2006