Opinion
23855
October 2, 2003.
Appeal by tenant Claris Lawson from a final judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (G. Badillo, J.), entered on April 2, 2002, in a summary holdover proceeding, awarding landlord possession.
APPERANCES OF COUNSEL Claris Lawson, appellant pro se.
Slochowsky Slochowsky, Brooklyn (Israel Slochowsky and John Pizzano of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
Final judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Tenant argues on appeal that the structures located at 69-03 and 69-01 38th Ave., Woodside, Queens, constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling subject to the Rent Stabilization Laws entitling them to a renewal lease and regulated rent increases.
In determining the existence of a regulated horizontal multiple dwelling, there must be sufficient indicia establishing common facilities, common ownership, management and operation to warrant a finding that the housing is an integrated multiple dwelling subject to the Rent Stabilization Law ( Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 792; Howell v Francesco, NYLJ, Aug. 6, 2003 [App Term, 2d and 11th Jud Dists]). In support of tenant's claim that the two structures constitute an integrated multiple dwelling, they cite the structures' common ownership, combined tax assessment, common water meter, front steps, facade and roof. However, in our view, the court below properly concluded that the structures do not constitute a single horizontal multiple dwelling. Internally, the structures share only a common wall and there are no passages from the roof to the basement. The structures have different addresses, separate entrances and are served by separate electrical and gas lines and meters. There are two certificates of occupancy and they also have separate multiple dwelling registration numbers. Although the evidence adduced at trial established that the housings are currently served by one water meter, the landlord established that there had been a meter for each structure, but one was removed due to a defect, and it had not been replaced by the appropriate authority.
Claims of common ownership, operation, or that the housings occupy a single tax lot and share one or more structural features is not dispositive of the issue ( e.g. Jackson v Biderman, 151 A.D.2d 400, 401; Delorenzo v Krizman, NYLJ, May 16, 1986 [App Term, 1st Dept, affd 125 A.D.2d 1015; Howell v Francesco, NYLJ, Aug. 6, 2003 [App Term, 2d and 11th Jud Dists]; Chai Kai Brothers, Inc. v Nicholas G. Yeager, Inc., NYLJ, Oct. 21, 1998 [Civ Ct, N.Y. County]) since the countervailing factors established in this case are more compelling ( see Jackson v Biderman, 151 A.D.2d at 401).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised on appeal and find them to be without merit.