710 Madison Avenue LLC (Petitioner) v Christopher Hicks (Respondent)

Supreme court appellate term first dept.

This case concerned the unsuccessful appeal of a summary holdover case, by which the landlord of the property tried to regain possession of a rent stabilized apartment, on the grounds that it was not used as a primary residence. The case was originally dismissed in a non-jury trial at civil court, following the assertion that a long term absence (in this case 40 years) was still in keeping with primary residence purposes. The determination of the court regarding the long term absence was due to a just examination of the presented evidence.

The evidence in this case consisted of the tenant’s leaving to go to Georgia to care for his ailing parents who subsequently passed away, which required him to spend further time there to wind up their estate (related case law, see 82nd Corp. v Veiders, 146 AD3d at 696). The evidence showed various important medical, banking documents etc. stating the respondent’s listed apartment as the address. Whilst it was disclosed that the respondent also had a secondary home in Upstate New York, this was reflected in certain important documents and by way of the credible witness testimony.

By: Gurpreet Basra, Legal Intern at Bikram Singh Law, P.C.


Bikram Singh

Mr. Singh has been practicing law in the New York State and Federal Courts for more than 11 years. He was a principal attorney at Bikram Singh Law, P.C., after graduating with honors from Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in 2008.