Landlord v. Tenant: July 2016
Alterations to Apartments: Landlord Can Evict Tenants If They Don’t Remove Washing Machine
Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenants for keeping and using a washing machine in their apartment, in violation of their lease. Landlord and tenants, each represented by attorneys, signed a settlement agreement in court calling for the issuance of an eviction warrant but delaying execution on the warrant to give tenants the chance to cure by removing the washing machine within 10 days. Landlord later claimed that tenants violated the agreement by not removing the washing machine and sought to execute on the eviction warrant. The court ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants violated the settlement agreement by not removing the washing machine, and landlord was entitled to evict them. However, the court gave tenants a final opportunity to remove the washing machine since tenants had lived in the apartment for 37 years.
- Parkchester Preservation Company v. Lambert: 51 Misc.3d 149(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 50804(U) (App. T. 1 Dept.; 5/23/16)
Pets: No Proof Tenant’s Three Pit Bulls Created Hazardous Condition
Landlord sued to evict tenant for keeping dogs in violation of tenant’s lease. Landlord also claimed that keeping three pit bulls was a hazardous act because it would increase landlord’s insurance premiums. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that tenant waived its right to object to the dogs by failing to act within three months after tenant got them. Tenant also claimed there was no proof that the dogs created a hazard. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Landlord didn’t deny that it failed to act within three months. And New York City hasn’t recognized pit bulls as a dangerous breed of dog. And landlord failed to show that the dogs were dangerous and hazardous to the safety of others at the building. Landlord’s claim that its insurance costs would increase was speculative.
- Kismo Apartments, LLC v. Mateo: Index No. L&T53131/15, NYLJ No. 1202757120854 (Civ. Ct. S.I.; 4/18/16)
Rent Reduction Denied: Landlord Didn’t Prove Bedbugs Were Eradicated
Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services due to bedbugs in her apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration, claiming that the condition was cured. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that the bedbug condition hadn’t been resolved. HPD’s database still listed a violation for bedbugs. A court decision issued in a nonpayment case against tenant also didn’t prove that the bedbugs had been eradicated. That decision noted one incident of a bedbug bite between November 2014 and April 2015.
- 281 East 205th, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DV610020RO (4/6/16)