Petitioner appeals from an order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated July 28, 2005, which denied its cross motion for discovery and interim use and occupancy in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.) dated July 28, 2005, reversed, with $10 costs, and landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery and for interim use and occupancy is granted.

Petitioner should have been granted discovery in connection with the occupancy issues raised by respondent's succession claim (see Bromley Co. v. Rachman, 4 Misc. 3d 136[A] [2004]. Facts concerning respondent's residence, the period of co-occupancy with her mother, and the use made of the premises are peculiarly within respondent's knowledge (see Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996]; Quality and Ruskin Assoc. v. London, 8 Misc. 3d 102 [2005]).

Petitioner is awarded interim use and occupancy as it accrues pending the resolution of the proceeding (see Eli Haddad Corp. v. Cal Redmond Studio, 102 AD2d 730 [1984]). Accordingly, respondent, within 20 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry is directed to pay to petitioner, without prejudice to any party, (1) use and occupancy at the rate of $236.62, representing the last controlled rent, accruing since July 1, 2005, plus $118.31 for June 2005, and (2) future use and occupancy as it becomes due. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: February 06, 2006