SR 10 W, LLC v Soufeh

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th And 10th Judicial Districts

Decided on July 29, 2025

2024-599 N C

Present: : Jerry Garguilo, P.J., Timothy S. Driscoll, Elena Goldberg-Velazquez, JJ

Law Offices of George M. Gavalas P.C. (George M. Gavalas of counsel), for appellants. Brown, Altman & Dileo, LLP (Lidia Szczepanowski of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Christopher J. Coschignano, J.), dated May 23, 2024. The order granted landlord's motion for summary judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, based upon the creation of a month-to-month tenancy following the expiration of a two-year lease, and service thereafter upon tenants of a 90-day notice of termination (see Real Property Law §§ 232-a, 226-c [2] [d]), landlord moved for summary judgment. By order dated May 23, 2024, the District Court (Christopher J. Coschignano, J.) granted the motion. On appeal, tenants argue, among other things, that the two-year lease relied upon by landlord contained forged signatures and that they were properly in possession pursuant to an unexpired three-year lease.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, landlord established, prima facie, that the parties' tenancy began in March 2020 pursuant to the two-year lease, and that tenants continued in possession of the subject premises, without landlord's permission, after the expiration of the parties' month-to-month tenancy, pursuant to the notice of termination (see RPAPL 711 [1]). With respect to the authenticity of their signatures on the two-year lease, tenants' bald assertion that their signatures on the lease were forged, "in the absence of factual assertions to support such a claim, was inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact" (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Armijos, 151 AD3d 943, 944 [2017]; see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 384 [2004]). Tenants also failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the purported three-year [*2]lease between the parties (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Nor did tenants raise any triable issue of fact as to their affirmative defenses (see Almark Holdings Co., LLC v Pizza147 NY LLC, 77 Misc 3d 130[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51224[U], *1 [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: July 29, 2025