New Trial Needed in Primary Residence Case

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nonprimary residence. The trial court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Landlord appealed, and a new trial was ordered. Landlord claimed that landlord lived primarily with his long-time companion in another Manhattan apartment. Trial evidence showed that tenant made only minimal daytime use of his rent-stabilized apartment for the one-and-one-half-year period before his lease was terminated. The trial court found tenant's absence from landlord's apartment excusable because it was too cluttered to live in after landlord's terrace repairs forced tenant to move his patio furniture indoors. Tenant also claimed that he couldn't thereafter live alone in the apartment due to his psychologically fragile state. These were insufficient reasons to find that tenant primarily resided in the rent-stabilized apartment. Tenant never complained to landlord about having to move items from his small terrace into the 750-square-foot apartment. The trial court also improperly permitted tenant to present psychological evidence mid-trial when no issue concerning tenant's mental state was raised in his answer and he had falsely stated in pretrial questioning that he was not under the care of a psychiatrist. The trial court also didn't consider why tenant's claimed fear of living alone didn't result in his companion moving in with him or why this condition was suddenly cured when tenant received the termination notice. A new trial was needed to correct the court's evidentiary errors.

405 East 56th Street LLC v. Malfa: NYLJ, 4/19/12, p. 25, col. 6 (App. T. 1 Dept.; Shulman, JP, Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ)