Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered May 20, 2010, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered May 20, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial court's fact-laden determination that the rent stabilized tenants primarily reside in the subject Manhattan apartment represents a fair interpretation of the evidence, and is not disturbed. Tenants' credited testimony, corroborated by several witnesses, demonstrated that during the work week they reside in the apartment, which is fully-furnished; they maintain full-time jobs in Manhattan; they regularly attend cultural events in New York City related to their employment; and they frequently entertain guests in the apartment. Notably, too, landlord does not dispute that both tenants spend well in excess of 183 days a year in the apartment (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][3]), and there is no evidence of any subletting (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][4]). With respect to tenants' Orange County house, tenants' credited testimony demonstrated that the house serves not as their primary residence, but as a weekend and holiday retreat. As the trial court aptly observed, while tenants "undoubtedly have a long term and deep connection to the [Orange County] house, it is nothing more than their weekend/vacation home." Thus, on this record, tenants' use of the address of the Orange County house on certain documentation, while relevant (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[u][1]), does not compel a finding of nonprimary residence (see 310 E. 23rd LLC v Colvin, 41 AD3d 149 [2007]; Village Dev. Assoc. LLC v Walker, 282 AD2d 369 [2001]; 300 E. 34th St. Co. v Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50 [1997]). [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 18, 2010