Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SR 10 W, LLC, Respondent, v. Joseph Soufeh and Melody Soufeh, Appellants, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Undertenants.
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 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
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2024-599 N C
Decided: July 29, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)