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.
78 HAVEMEYER, LLC, Appellant, v. Hussain ABUZAID, Respondent, et al., Undertenants.
ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this holdover proceeding based upon landlord's purported termination of an alleged month-to-month tenancy, tenant asserted, as one of his affirmative defenses, that the building in which he resides and two contiguous buildings together constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling that is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-501 et seq.) (see RSL §§ 26-504, 26-505; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11 [d]; Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 792 [1988]). After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court, in a decision dated January 29, 2016, awarded tenant a final judgment dismissing the petition, finding that the premises is part of a horizontal multiple dwelling that is subject to the RSL. Pursuant to that decision, a final judgment was entered on January 29, 2016. Landlord appeals, contending only that the final judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered due to deficiencies in the trial transcripts that would preclude meaningful appellate review.1
Upon a review of the record, we conclude that, contrary to landlord's contention, there are no errors, omissions or deficiencies in the trial transcripts that would preclude meaningful appellate review and warrant a reversal of the final judgment and a remand for a new trial (cf. Matter of Ernest LL v. Rosemary LL, 50 AD2d 706, 707 [1975] [holding that an order issued after a trial in a custody proceeding had to be reversed and a new trial ordered because the numerous errors, mistakes and omissions in the trial transcript precluded meaningful appellate review] ).
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. By order dated August 16, 2018, the Civil Court denied landlord's motion to set aside the January 29, 2016 decision and for a new trial on the ground of transcript deficiencies. Subsequently, by order dated October 23, 2018, the court granted landlord's motion to settle the trial transcripts and to recreate a portion of a transcript for certain missing testimony.
ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.
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: 2018-113 K C
Decided: April 24, 2020
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)