Powers v. Babic

• Decision Date: 21 November 1991
• Citation: Powers v. Babic, 576 N.Y.S.2d 535, 177 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
• Parties: Edward W. POWERS, III, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v. Dragan BABIC, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 535

576 N.Y.S.2d 535

177 A.D.2d 432

Edward W. POWERS, III, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v.Dragan BABIC, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Nov. 21, 1991.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, ROSENBERGER and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 27, 1990, 148 Misc.2d 952, 569 N.Y.S.2d 324, which, inter alia, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court, New York County(Joseph B. Goldman, J.), entered on or about June 28, 1989, awarding possession of the subject apartment to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this owner occupancy proceeding pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.4(a), Civil Court initially dismissed the landlord's petition, after trial, upon the ground that the 120-150 day notice of non-renewal was defective (Powers v. Babic, 141 Misc.2d 344, 533 N.Y.S.2d 790) but Appellate Term reversed and remanded to Civil Court"for findings of fact on the issue of [petitioner's] good faith"(Powers v. Babic, 143 Misc.2d 58, 543 N.Y.S.2d 356).

On remand, Civil Court, reviewing the pre-remand trial transcript that had been made before it, and without conducting a hearing, concluded that the petitioner did evince the requisite good faith in seeking to recover possession of the apartment for his ailing father and stepmother, and awarded him possession.Respondent moved to vacate this judgment after learning that petitioner's father had died shortly before Civil Court had rendered its decision.This motion was denied by Civil Court on the ground that Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.6(n) includes "stepmother" in the definition of immediate family.Appellate Term unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to respondent's contention, Appellate...