Summary judgment was properly granted, defendant having failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact. Defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue concerning the ownership of the premises and the alleged partial actual eviction of defendant. With regard to the latter, there was absolutely no evidence that plaintiff wrongfully ousted defendant from his apartment (see, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 77; cf., Washburn v 166 E. 96th St. Owners Corp., 166 A.D.2d 272). Finally, defendant failed to proffer any evidence supporting his entitlement to attorneys' fees which would have warranted the denial of summary judgment.
We also note that, under the circumstances, it was not improper for the IAS Court to direct defendant to pay maintenance during the pendency of this action (see, Del Bello v Wilmot, 59 A.D.2d 1023).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.