Tenants and undertenants appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered February 7, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding based upon nonprimary residence.

.Per Curiam.
Final judgment (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered February 7, 2007, affirmed, with $25 costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that tenant does not maintain an "ongoing, substantial, physical nexus" with the rent stabilized apartment "for actual living purposes" which would justify affording the tenancy continued stabilization protection (see Emel Realty Corp. v Carey, 288 AD2d 163 [2001]). Tenant, who has been retired since 1994, admittedly spends a significant amount of time each year in Olhao, Portugal, where he owns a three bedroom home which he built in the late 1970s and for which he maintains utility accounts. In 1981, tenant's wife and then young children relocated to Portugal, working and attending school there. Respondents Rachel and Sonya Picarra, tenant's daughters, returned to the United States as adults to attend college and stayed at the subject apartment, while tenant remained in Portugal, where his wife continued to reside. During her stay in the apartment, Sonya concededly paid the utility bills with tenant's pre-signed checks. Considering the entire history of the tenancy (see 615 v Mikeska, 75 NY2d 987 [1990]), and the evidence concerning tenant's limited connection to the 310-square foot walk-up apartment, we agree that landlord met its burden of establishing that tenant does not use the apartment as his primary residence.

We have considered and rejected tenant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 23, 2008