Padilla v. Rodriguez

Petitioner appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about August 21, 2017, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in an illegal lockout proceeding (see RPAPL 713[10]).

Per Curiam.

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about August 21, 2017, affirmed, without costs.

The petition in this illegal lockout proceeding (see RPAPL 713[10]), was properly dismissed after trial. Petitioner, the Section 8 tenant of an apartment located at 678 Academy Street, presented no evidence establishing that she had a possessory interest in the subject Fort Washington Avenue apartment (see Markun v Weckstein, 100 Misc 668 [App Term, 1st Dept 1917]; see also Viglietta v Lavoie, 33 Misc 3d 36 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2011]), and was a mere licensee of the tenant (see Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel, 20 AD2d 71, 76 [1963]). Since a licensee does not have "possession," she cannot maintain an unlawful entry and detainer proceeding (RPAPL 713[10]; see Napier v Spielmann, 196 NY 575 [1909], affg on op of Houghton, J. 127 App Div. 567 [1908]; P & A Bros. v City of NY Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 AD2d 267 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.