DAVID ELLIS REAL ESTATE, L.P., pet-res v. OTO GILLEN, res-app, -and- “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” res

15-336. DAVID ELLIS REAL ESTATE, L.P., pet-res v. OTO GILLEN, res-app, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE," res — Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated February 4, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by David J. Kaplan, J. at Civil Court.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

15-336. DAVID ELLIS REAL ESTATE, L.P., pet-res v. OTO GILLEN, res-app, -and- “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” res — Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated February 4, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by David J. Kaplan, J. at Civil Court.

In affirming the grant of summary judgment of possession to petitioner, we emphasize the undisputed record proof establishing that respondent Gillen and his mother vacated the subject interim multiple dwelling loft unit in 1990, when respondent was six years of age; lived together elsewhere for the next fourteen years; and then respondent returned to the premises in 2004, without his mother, subletting a portion of the loft from one Hayashi, the remaining loft tenant. On these facts, respondent’s succession claim, premised upon his primary residence with his mother for the two years prior to her 1990 vacatur (see 29 RCNY §2-08.1) was correctly rejected, since any right of succession respondent had from his mother was abandoned when both vacated the premises in 1990 and lived together elsewhere for more than a decade (see Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 15-17 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). As Civil Court aptly noted, “[i]t would be unfathomable to interpret the law in the manner posited by respondent that would allow him to assert his claim to the apartment over 20 years after he and the putative tenant simultaneously vacated.”

DAVID ELLIS REAL ESTATE, L.P., pet-res v. OTO GILLEN, res-app, -and- “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” res

15-336. DAVID ELLIS REAL ESTATE, L.P., pet-res v. OTO GILLEN, res-app, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE," res — Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated February 4, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by David J. Kaplan, J. at Civil Court.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal