PER CURIAM:

Landlord was properly awarded summary judgment on the holdover petition against appellant, the son of the deceased tenant of record, there being no genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. In opposition to landlord's proof that appellant was not entitled to succeed to the rent controlled apartment, appellant failed to come forward with probative evidence tending to confirm that he primarily resided with his mother for at least two years immediately prior to her death. (New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations [ 9 NYCRR] § 2204.6[d][1], [2]). The record reveals that prior to his incarceration, appellant lived at his former marital residence in Great Neck during the pendency of a divorce action. He listed another address in Great Neck (the home of a friend) as his intended residence in a Department of Correctional Services home verification report. There was no factual demonstration that the incarceration was a temporary absence from an apartment actually utilized as a primary residence. Appellant relied largely on the conclusory affirmations of his two brothers, devoid of evidentiary detail, and conspicuously failed to submit the customary indicia of continuous residence at the subject premises during the relevant time period (420 E. Assocs. v. Estate of Lennon, 223 AD2d 408). Since landlord made an unrebutted showing that appellant did not satisfy the criteria for succession, summary judgment was appropriate (see, Haroust Corp. v. Chin, 155 AD2d 317).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.