[*1]
UHAB HDFC v Diaz
2005 NY Slip Op 51957(U) [10 Misc 3d 130(A)]
Decided on December 1, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on December 1, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: DECEMBER 1, 2005 June 2004 Term Davis, J.P., Gangel-Jacob, Schoenfeld, JJ.
NY County Clerk's No. 570051/04

UHAB HDFC, Petitioner-Respondent, Calendar No. 04-180

against

Aurelia Diaz, Respondent-Appellant.


Respondent Aurelia Diaz appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Cyril K. Bedford, J.) entered September 24, 2003, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:

Final judgment (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered September 24, 2003, reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed.

The trial evidence establishes that respondent Diaz has a cognizable tenancy interest entitling her to a 30-day notice of termination under Real Property Law § 228.
The record shows, and it is not seriously disputed, that Diaz moved into the then City owned, East 7th Street building premises in l986 as a licensee of the record tenant of apartment lB/2B, her aunt who subsequently vacated; that
Diaz has continuously lived in the apartment since that time and has been a member of and paid dues to the building's "homestead association" since l989; and that Diaz has spent approximately $20,000 and expended considerable time and effort in repairing the apartment and the building's common areas under a "sweat equity" arrangement. On these facts, the record compels the conclusion that the City, as predecessor owner, acquiesced in Diaz's long-term occupancy, and supports the inference, unrebutted at trial, that a tenancy at will was created (see City of New York v Otsey, 185 Misc 2d 715 [2000]). Thus, the within licensee holdover proceeding, predicated upon a 10-day notice to quit, does not lie. We reach no other issue.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: December 01, 2005