PADILLA v. RODRIGUEZ (2018)

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about August 21, 2017, affirmed, without costs.

The petition in this illegal lockout proceeding (see RPAPL 713[10] ), was properly dismissed after trial. Petitioner, the Section 8 tenant of an apartment located at 678 Academy Street, presented no evidence establishing that she had a possessory interest in the subject Fort Washington Avenue apartment (see Markun v. Weckstein, 100 Misc 668 [App Term, 1st Dept 1917]; see also Viglietta v. Lavoie, 33 Misc 3d 36 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2011] ), and was a mere licensee of the tenant (see Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 20 AD2d 71, 76 [1963] ). Since a licensee does not have “possession,” she cannot maintain an unlawful entry and detainer proceeding (RPAPL 713[10]; see Napier v. Spielmann, 196 NY 575 [1909], affg on op of Houghton, J. 127 App Div. 567 [1908]; P & A Bros. v. City of NY Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 AD2d 267 [1992] ).

Per Curiam.