Matter of Ansonia Assoc. L.P. v. Unwin

In Matter of Ansonia Assoc. L.P. v. Unwin (130 AD3d 453 [2015]) landlord moved for summary judgment in a nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, submitting, inter alia, tenant's federal tax returns for the relevant period, on which tenant deducted the entire rent for her stabilized apartment as a business expense, and the instructions for said tax returns, which disallow any deduction of rent if the dwelling unit is occupied for personal use. Civil Court denied landlord's motion for summary judgment, and this court affirmed, relying upon then extant First Department precedent holding that information in a tax-related document is not dispositive in determining primary residence (see West 157th St. Assoc. v. Sassoonian, 156 AD2d 137 [1989] [factual dispute as to tenant's primary residence "notwithstanding . . . that he sought to deduct his entire rent as a commercial expense" on his tax returns]). However, upon a further appeal, the Appellate Division reversed. Relying, in part, upon the Court of Appeals decision in Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman (12 NY3d 415, 422 [2009]), which held that "[a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in an income tax return," the Appellate Division granted summary judgment of possession to landlord, holding that tenant's position that the apartment is her primary residence was " 'contrary to declarations made under the penalty of perjury on income tax returns,' i.e. that she does not occupy the apartment for personal use" (Unwin at 454). These declarations were held to be "dispositive," even though triable issues were raised as to tenant's use of the apartment for actual living purposes, and notwithstanding that the Rent Stabilization Code provides that "no single factor shall be solely determinative" in determining primary residence (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2520.6 [u]). The Appellate Division thus concluded that tenant "may not claim primary residence because that claim is 'logically incompatible' with the position she asserted on her tax returns" (Unwin at 454).