DECISION AND ORDER This commercial holdover proceeding arises from the termination of respondent’s month-to month tenancy of a garage space, seeks to recover possession of the garage premises described as “Garage Spot #3″ at 2273 Bassford Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10457 as per the pleadings. After the respondents’ failure to answer and appear, the matter was scheduled for inquest on August 28, 2018 pursuant to RPAPL §731 and was heard by the Court. PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe affidavits of service of both the thirty-day termination notice and the notice of petition and the petition state that service was made on individuals of suitable age and discretion at the subject premises, and that mailings were later remitted to the subject premises. The respondents failed to answer and appear on all the scheduled court dates.FINDINGS OF FACTA managing agent testified on behalf of the petitioner. The witness testified that the respondents are in possession of garage unit #3 as month-to-month occupants and that a lease was never in effect since the petitioner purchased the building. It was also the petitioner’s testimony that a thirty-day notice of termination was served on the respondents. The petitioner further testified that there is a vehicle and an individual outside of the unit. The petitioner’s counsel elaborated that there are vehicles, and at least one vehicle and a person present in this garage unit. A certified copy of a deed was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit #1. The Court took judicial notice of the notice of petition and the petition as Court Exhibits #1 and #2, respectively. The petitioner’s counsel also stated that the petitioner is not seeking a money judgment even though the respondents owe arrears.DISCUSSIONThe Court finds that the petitioner failed to present a prima facie case. Although “proof of ownership is not a necessary element of proof of a petitioner’s prima facie case”, Sedgwick Ave. Realty Associates, L.L.C. v. Torres, 38 Misc.3d 1212(A) (Civ. Ct. Bronx County 2013), citing K.R.F. Management Corp. v. Bartle, NYLJ, Oct. 19, 1987 at 9, col 2, (App Term 1st Dept), a landlord-tenant relationship must still be proven as required by RPAPL 711(1). See also, JCF Associates, LLC v. Sign Up USA, Inc., 59 Misc.3d 135(A) (App Term 2nd Dept 2018).The petitioner did not introduce any documentary evidence proving a landlord-tenant relationship. See, Redhead v. Henry, 160 Misc.2d 546 (Civ. Ct. Kings County 1994) (holding that “one cannot prove he/she is a landlord simply by testifying that he/she is a landlord…landlord = authority or right to transfer an interest in real property + transfer of an interest in real property via a lease, oral or written…showing ownership is simply the most obvious method by which to prove one’s right or authority”).The Court’s review of the deed entered into evidence reveals that it is not the deed for the subject premises; it is a deed for premises known as 502 East 183rd Street, Bronx, New York 10453. The deed in evidence does not reflect that 502 East 183rd Street, Bronx, New York is also known as 2273 Bassford Avenue, Bronx, New York. Furthermore, there was no testimony that the premises in question are known by an alternate address.Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.Date 9/11/2018
