Respondents appeal, and petitioner cross-appeals, from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2006, which granted petitioner's motion to set aside a jury verdict.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly granted petitioner-landlord's post-trial motion to set aside the
jury's verdict and ordered a new trial on the holdover petition (see CPLR 4404[a]). The trial court correctly found that the jury's determination that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties was against the weight of the evidence, it being undisputed that petitioner had initially placed respondents into possession and that respondents concededly had paid rent to him. Having taken possession directly from petitioner, who was named as co-owner on a deed duly recorded in 1989, respondents are estopped from disputing his status as landlord. To the extent that respondents seek to challenge petitioner's ownership of the premises, questions of title and ownership are not properly the subject of a summary proceeding (see Ferber v Salon Moderne, Inc., 174 Misc 2d 945 [1997]). A landlord-tenant relationship having been established, the trial should go forward on the remaining substantive issues.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 2, 2008