32 v. Penny Bailey, Appellant, John Doe #1-2 and Jane Doe #1-2, Undertenants. (2026)

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this holdover proceeding following the termination of tenant's lease based upon her alleged repeated refusals to allow access to the premises for inspection and necessary repairs. At a nonjury trial on May 1, 2025, landlord demonstrated that it served a 10-day notice to cure on tenant on January 23, 2025, which stated that tenant had violated her lease by not providing access for repairs on January 15 and 18, 2025. Landlord's witnesses testified that landlord had sought access to the subject apartment due to a persistent leak into the apartment below, and that tenant refused access on January 15, January 18 and January 21, 2025. There was further testimony that, on February 3, 2025, tenant was in the management office and stated that she would not allow access to her apartment and that there was no leak. Tenant testified that she did not refuse access and that the access attempts were made without notice and at unreasonable times. She also referenced security tapes which, she alleged, "tell[ ] a story besides this," and stated that the court should "just subpoena the security cameras." There had been no prior attempt to seek discovery or subpoenas, including at a court appearance in April. Following the trial, in a final judgment entered May 1, 2025, the City Court (Kiel E. Van Horn, J.) awarded landlord possession.

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to evaluate their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]). The testimonial evidence adduced at trial showed that tenant breached her lease, and failed to cure said breach, by repeatedly denying access to the premises for necessary repairs, thus supporting the court's determination. Tenant's argument that she was denied the opportunity to present evidence at trial lacks merit, as tenant did not seek leave of court to conduct discovery prior to the trial (see CPLR 408 [leave of court is required for disclosure in a special proceeding]; RPAPL 701 [1] [a summary proceeding is a special proceeding]).

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

WALSH, J.P., VAZQUEZ-DOLES and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 4, 2026