DECISION/ORDER The petitioner commenced this licensee holdover proceeding seeking possession of apartment 2K at 721 Willoughby Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11206 (the premises). The premises are subject to a Project Based Section 8 from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and are also subject to a Low Income Housing Tax Credit. The pleadings claim that the tenant of record, Rosalyn Mattocks, passed away in July 2016 and the occupants are in possession without the consent or permission of the petitioner. On January 6, 2017 a stipulation was submitted to the court which states that “Respondents appears by Counsel. Respondents consent to the jurisdiction of the court…” Said stipulation is signed by counsel as “Atty for Respondents.” On January 23, 2017 an Answer was submitted which states that the “Respondent(s) hereby interpose(s) the following Answer to the Petition herein. The first Affirmative Defense stated that “Respondents are entitled to a lease renewal as successors to a rent stabilized lease.” On February 10, 2017 another stipulation was submitted which lists six respondents appearing by counsel and states that “Respondents appear by counsel and represent that Sieed Powell is the remaining occupant w/ two children.” Thereafter on June 16, 2017 a stipulation was submitted by counsels for both sides which stated that “[o]nly Sied (sic.) Powell claims succession.” There were multiple subsequent adjournments to allow for discovery from Sieed Powell. Ultimately, the attorneys for both sides stipulated to a final judgment of possession on November 2, 2017 with a vacate date of January 15, 2018. The stipulation provided that Sieed Powell “represent no other adults reside in the apartment.” The stipulation is signed by Mr. Powell and his attorney, along with the petitioner’s attorney and it is So-Ordered by the court. The matter was adjourned to November 15, 2017 for an inquest against remaining occupants. On January 23, 2018 Raymel Mattocks (hereafter respondent) appeared by separate counsel alleging that he is entitled to the succession rights from his mother, Rosalyn Mattocks. He alleges that he has resided in the premises since the inception of the tenancy. He argues that his only absence from the apartment was while he was attending college. After a digitally-recorded trial held on July 16th, October 28th, 2019, and January 8, 2020 and after due deliberation and consideration of the credible documentary and testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, the Court makes the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below. The parties stipulated that the date of death of the tenant of record was July 6, 2016. Additionally the prima facie documents were submitted which included the re-certification documents on record for the apartment and signed off by the tenant of record. The property manager, Abdul Malik, testified that he was familiar with Rosalyn Mattocks. He initially worked for the petitioners as security. He testified that he knew the tenant of record, however, he did not start seeing Raymel Mattocks until two years prior to his testimony. He conceded that he was never in the apartment but he claims that he did go to the apartment door numerous times. He testified concerning his routine and shifts as a security guard at the building and how he saw most of the tenants in the building while doing his security checks. He alleges that he worked all of the shifts and that he worked seven days a week from 2007 through 2018, with the exception of a hospitalization. He conceded that he did not know everyone who lived in the apartments. He remembered seeing another of Ms. Mattock’s sons at the premises around 2016, however, he only became aware of the respondent when he saw him in 2016 and another security guard informed him that the respondent lived in the apartment. On re-direct Mr. Malik testified that he saw the respondent while working the 4 to 12 shift but only 2 to 3 years prior to the trial. The respondent testified that he moved into the apartment with his parents in the 1990′s and that he has lived there continuously except when he was attending college. He claims that he slept in the second bedroom, however, if he was working a night shift his brother, Sieed Powell, would sleep in that bedroom. His mother had many medical issues so the family tried to always have someone present. He also testified that his mother had the assistance of a home health aid. He claims that in addition to himself, his brothers Clayton and Sieed, and a sister, were living in the apartment in 2014. He denies that Sieed’s children ever lived in the apartment. The respondent submitted multiple documents in support of his residence and the petitioner also submitted documents in rebuttal of the claim. The respondent’s 1 were his bank statements from the Bank of America for the period from December 13, 2014 through January 12, 2016. All of these statements contain the apartment address. His Federal Tax returns for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 also list the premises as his home address but there is no apartment number noted on the returns. Additionally, each of these Federal returns all bear the date of February 28, 2018 next to the preparers signature, leading to the question of when they were prepared. Additionally, Schedule C of the 2016 and 2017 returns reference a Los Angeles, California business address. Respondent also offered W-2 statements for 2014 and 2015 which list the apartment as his address. Respondent conceded that some of his documents have another address. He stated that sometimes and with her permission, he used his daughter’s mother’s address on Lenox Road because the mailboxes at Willoughby were not safe. Respondent, however, offered his 2014 State and Local Tax Return which contains a completely different address on Franklin Avenue. He testified that his mother had become ill and had a home health aide. He stated that he and other family members all came together to help support and care for his mother but that he was the main child living there. Respondent then went on to explain some of the other discrepancies in the addresses he has used. He explained that in 2017 he received a New Hampshire driver license because he sold cars for a friend who was a New Hampshire car dealer and was easier. Notwithstanding that the New Hampshire driver license does not expire until 2022, Respondent stated that in 2018 he applied for and received a New York State driver license. He also conceded that his vehicle was registered in New Hampshire as is evidenced by Petitioner’s F. The registration appears to have been issued in 2017 and expired in May 2018. Respondent testified that he had tried to be added to the lease many times over the years to no avail. He said that management always had an excuse about needing more paperwork. On cross examination Respondent testified that he moved into the Apartment in the 1990′s. He stated that his brother, Sieed, lived with his sister in another building. He reiterated that he used different mailing addresses for safety. When questioned about where his brother and mother had there mail sent, he said he didn’t know about his brother but his mom’s mail went to the Apartment. He conceded not being his mother’s emergency contact on a 2009 form. Notably, respondent testified about his relationship with his brother. He stated that he talks to him on a daily basis yet his brother never mentioned the case or that he was claiming succession. He stated that Sieed has children but they did not live in the apartment. Next to testify was James Michael Coleman who was subpoenaed to testify by the Respondent. Mr. Coleman stated that he worked for the management company since 1998 and over the years as super and handyman he had contact with many of the residents. He remembered the Respondent’s mother and said that he looked after her as she was disabled. He testified that the Respondent was there at the time his mother took the apartment and to his knowledge had never left. He said that from 2014 to 2016 he saw the respondent at the premises and it appeared that he lived there. He recalled the entire family moved in, parents, brothers and sisters and told how the sister passed away and the other brother was in the apartment as well. He stated that he remembered seeing respondent specifically in 2015-2016 due to construction that was going on at the building. Finally, Jessica Lewis testified for respondent. She stated that she was the tenant in apartment 5V for 12 years. She said that she knew respondent’s whole family. Ms. Lewis testified that she was inside the apartment and saw respondent there and that it appeared he was living there. She stated that she worked security for the 3 buildings from 2006-2008 and recalled seeing the respondent from 2007 on, in the neighborhood or going to the store. After she moved into the building in 2008, Ms Lewis testified that the respondent’s mother treated her like a daughter. She spent time in the apartment and one time stayed overnight. She sated she did not know if the respondent moved out of the apartment. On cross examination she described respondent’s family like her family. She stated that she saw respondent and his brother everyday and after his mom passed away, she saw respondent all the time. It is undisputed that Respondent is the son of the tenant of record. It is further undisputed that the tenant of record resided in the Apartment up until her death in July 2016. In order to establish succession to an apartment, there must be a showing that the proponent resided in the apartment with the tenant of record for a period of no less that two years prior to the tenant permanently vacating the apartment or for a period of no less than one year if they are a disabled person. 9 NYCRR §2523.5. The record here is filled with different addresses throughout the relevant window period of July 2014 through July 2016. Of the Federal tax returns the 2016 and 2017 appear to be dated outside the window period. The 2014 and 2015 do contain the address for the premises and appear to have been for the window period but as mentioned previously, appear to have been prepared in February 2018, outside the window period. The NYS 2014 tax return contains a different Brooklyn address, not even that of respondent’s daughter’s mother, that he claims to use. And the license and registration, while for a irrelevant time period, contain a New Hampshire address. Respondent’s pay stubs for 2015 through 2017 contain his daughter’s mother’s address on Lenox Road, albeit at least two different apartments. Which leaves respondent’s credible documentary evidence as his Bank of America statements for December 2014 to January 2016 and his W-2 statements for 2014 and 2015 both which contain the apartment’s address. He also has his testimony and that of his two witnesses. Petitioner has also submitted the respondent’s mother’s annual recertifications for 2014 and 2015. Respondent appears nowhere on these documents. A curious contradiction in this case is what happened before the trial. The prior attorney’s notice of appearance, answer and at least two stipulations name respondent Raymel Mattocks and clearly state that he was represented by then counsel. This notwithstanding, respondent was not included on the original final judgment stipulation which was entered into after almost one year of litigation and the matter was scheduled for an inquest against him and the other named respondents. It was on the inquest date that the respondent appeared by different counsel and claimed no knowledge of the proceeding or the settlement. Respondent testified that he speaks to his brother daily and claims a close relationship with him. The Court finds it very difficult to believe that given their relationship, they would not have spoken about the case. Further, there is no explanation offered for respondent’s brother’s statement that no other adults were living in the premises at the time of the November 2017 stipulation. Respondent maintains that he had important mail delivered to an alternate address yet he allowed his bank statements and tax refunds to go to the apartment. Further, many of the documents that support the respondent’s time line were prepared or issued in 2018, after respondent first appeared in this proceeding and well after the window period. The lack of credible documentary evidence coupled with the respondent’s questionable credibility lead this Court to conclude that the respondent has failed to establish that he co-resided with his mother during the two years prior to her death. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded a final judgment of possession, warrant to issue forthwith, execution stayed to and including April 30, 2020 for respondent to vacate. Petitioner to serve and file a Notice of Entry within 20 days of the date of this Decision. The Court will mail a copy of this Decision to counsel for both parties as a courtesy. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. SO ORDERED Dated: February 7, 2020
