Case Name: Little West 12th St. Realty, L.P., Doing Business as Little West 12th St. Realty Co., Also Known as L.W 12th St. Realty Co., Appellant, v. Vincent Inconiglios, Respondent, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-03-20
Citations: 23 Misc. 3d 28
Docket Number: 
Parties: Little West 12th St. Realty, L.P., Doing Business as Little West 12th St. Realty Co., Also Known as L.W 12th St. Realty Co., Appellant, v Vincent Inconiglios, Respondent, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
[878 NYS2d 542]
Little West 12th St. Realty, L.P., Doing Business as Little West 12th St. Realty Co., Also Known as L.W 12th St. Realty Co., Appellant, v Vincent Inconiglios, Respondent, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
March 20, 2009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York City (Sherwin Belkin, Joseph Burden, Magda L. Cruz and Amanda L. Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Himmelstein McConnell Gribben Donoghue & Joseph, New York City (David E. Frazer of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Order, dated February 20, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.
We agree, essentially for reasons stated by David B. Cohen, J., at Civil Court, that tenant demonstrated entitlement to protection under the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law art 7-C). Tenant's submissions, including the affidavits of current and former building residents, demonstrated that a portion of the subject building, formerly used for commercial purposes, was occupied as the residence or home of three or more independently living families during the original window period (Apr. 1, 1980 through Dec. 1, 1981), and that at least one unit was continuously occupied for residential purposes from the original window period through May 1, 1987 (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 [1], [4]). Landlord's conclusory allegations in opposition, denying knowledge of or consent to the residential use of the premises, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see 545 Eighth Ave. Assoc. v New York City Loft Bd., 232 AD2d 153 [1996]; Kaufman v American Electrofax Corp., 102 AD2d 140 [1984]).
We have considered landlord's remaining arguments and find them without merit.
McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitleb, JJ., concur.