[*1]
Farina v Rosenblum
2010 NY Slip Op 51288(U) [28 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on July 21, 2010
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on July 21, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570074/10.

Robert Farina, Plaintiff-

against

Kenneth Rosenblum and Bernice Rosenblum, Defendants-Respondents.


Plaintiff, as limited by his brief, appeals from that portion of a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 24, 2004, after a nonjury trial, which awarded defendants judgment on their counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $8,589.08.


Per Curiam.

Judgment (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 24, 2004, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree with Civil Court that defendants-landlords established their entitlement to judgment on their counterclaim for rent. The evidence, fairly interpreted, established that there was an enforceable lease agreement between the parties regarding apartment 22 (an unregulated unit) in landlords' building. Although plaintiff-tenant claimed he entered into an oral agreement with defendants to "void" the one-year lease he signed with respect to that unit, defendants denied that such an agreement was reached, and the governing lease agreement precluded such a modification (see General Obligations Law � 15-301[1]; Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v Jeffrey Lawrence Assocs., Inc.,270 AD2d 140 [2000]). Plaintiff's failure to take physical possession of the apartment did not relieve him of his obligation to pay rent (see 1 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant - Summary Proceedings � 8:13 [4th ed]). Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's mid-trial request for an adjournment to subpoena unidentified witnesses and unspecified documents (see Pinnacle Uptown, LLC v Banks, 24 Misc 3d 139 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51597[U] [2009]; see also Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 666 [2006]; 174 Second Equities Corp. v Hee Nam Bae, 57 AD3d 319 [2008]). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without substantial merit.[FN1]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 21, 2010

Footnotes


Footnote 1:We note plaintiff's excessive and unexplained delay in perfecting and prosecuting this appeal.