| 1180 50th St. Assoc., Inc. v Topolenko |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 50327(U) [22 Misc 3d 137(A)] |
| Decided on February 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Term, Second 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
(John H. Stanley, J.), entered May 30, 2007. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded
landlord possession and the sum of $1,480.92 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
Final judgment affirmed without costs.
In this nonpayment summary proceeding, the Civil Court properly found, after trial, that landlord had established that tenant's rent was $662.34 per month starting October 2004 and $710.36 per month starting October 2006. The court's conclusion was based in part on copies of signed lease renewal agreements provided by landlord and upon the court's determination that tenant's claims that she had not seen or signed those agreements were not credible. As the court's findings were based in part on the credibility of the witnesses and are supported by the record, they will not be disturbed on appeal (see e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). Moreover, tenant failed to establish that any final decision in a prior proceeding between the parties had determined that the lease renewal agreements were not valid or enforceable.
The Civil Court also properly found that tenant had not demonstrated a breach of the warranty of habitability, as tenant did not give landlord notice of the problems (see e.g. 1180 50th St. Assoc., Inc. v Topolenko, 8 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51040[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; Continental Gardens Apt. Corp. v Fardi, 2001 NY Slip Op 40524[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]). As this finding was also based in part on the credibility of the witnesses and is supported by the record, it too will not be disturbed on appeal [*2](see e.g. Vizzari, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade, 178 AD2d 510).
Tenant's remaining arguments are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 24, 2009