Landlord appeals, as limited by its brief, from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eardell J. Rashford, J.), dated November 19, 2008, which denied its motion for leave to conduct discovery in a holdover summary proceeding, and from an order (same court and Judge), dated July 22, 2009, which denied its motion to renew and reargue the aforesaid order.

Per Curiam.

Order (Eardell J. Rashford, J.), dated November 19, 2008, modified to grant landlord leave to depose tenants and respondent Marino Polanco; as modified, order affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (same court and Judge), dated July 22, 2009, dismissed, without costs, as academic with respect to renewal and as taken from a nonappealable order with respect to reargument.

Landlord showed "ample need" (see New York Univ. v Farkas, 121 Misc 2d 643, 647 [1983]), to conduct depositions of tenants and respondent Marino Polanco, since it is clear that they possess particular knowledge which could shed light on the occupancy issues raised in connection with his succession claim to the subject apartment (see 88 Third Realty, LLC v Kai Lin Li, 19 Misc 3d 135[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50736[U] [2008]; Bromley Co., LLC v Rachman, 4 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50828[U] [2004]). "Facts concerning respondent's residence, the period of co-occupancy with [tenants], and the use made of the premises are peculiarly within respondent's knowledge" (217 East 82nd Street Co. v Perko, 10 Misc 3d 146[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50157[U] [2006]; see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 17-18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]; Quality & Ruskin Assoc. v London, 8 Misc 3d 102, 103-104 [2005]).

We have considered and rejected landlord's remaining contentions. [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.