Beautiful Village Associates Redevelopment Co. v. Gomez

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Beautiful Village Associates Redevelopment Co. v. Gomez

38 Misc. 3d 14

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Misc. 3d 14 (Beautiful Village Associates Redevelopment Co. v. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beautiful Village Associates Redevelopment Co. v. Gomez, 38 Misc. 3d 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered March 14, 2012, reversed, without costs, and final judgment awarded to landlord upon its cause of action for possession. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Evidence at trial established that police, in the course of a lawful search of tenants’ apartment, recovered, among other items, multiple ziplock bags containing marijuana, a strainer and scale, each containing cocaine residue, and a substantial amount of cash. These items were found in a locked closet, for which tenant Gomez and her son had the only keys. Based upon this evidence, we find that landlord met its burden of establishing that tenant’s apartment was being used for “drug-related criminal activity” in violation of tenant’s Section 8 lease agreement. Moreover, in light of the location, amount and nature of the contraband, an inference was raised that tenants knew or should have known of this drug-related activity (see Matter of 88-09 Realty v Hill, 305 AD2d 409, 410 [2003]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Otero, 5 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]), an inference that tenants failed to rebut. Indeed, tenants failed to offer any plausible explanation for the presence of the contraband. Given the persuasive showing of tenants’ knowing violation of the lease, and in the absence of any express credibility findings below, we exercise our authority to render the judgment warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address whether the strict liability standard enunciated in Department of Housing & Urban Development v Rucker (535 US 125 [2002]), is properly [16]*16applied to a drug holdover proceeding brought against a Section 8 tenant.

Shulman, J.E, Hunter, Jr. and Torres, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered March 14, 2012, reversed, without costs, and final judgment awarded to landlord upon its cause of action for possession. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Evidence at trial established that police, in the course of a lawful search of tenants’ apartment, recovered, among other items, multiple ziplock bags containing marijuana, a strainer and scale, each containing cocaine residue, and a substantial amount of cash. These items were found in a locked closet, for which tenant Gomez and her son had the only keys. Based upon this evidence, we find that landlord met its burden of establishing that tenant’s apartment was being used for “drug-related criminal activity” in violation of tenant’s Section 8 lease agreement. Moreover, in light of the location, amount and nature of the contraband, an inference was raised that tenants knew or should have known of this drug-related activity (see Matter of 88-09 Realty v Hill, 305 AD2d 409, 410 [2003]; New York City Hous. Auth. v Otero, 5 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]), an inference that tenants failed to rebut. Indeed, tenants failed to offer any plausible explanation for the presence of the contraband. Given the persuasive showing of tenants’ knowing violation of the lease, and in the absence of any express credibility findings below, we exercise our authority to render the judgment warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address whether the strict liability standard enunciated in Department of Housing & Urban Development v Rucker (535 US 125 [2002]), is properly [16]*16applied to a drug holdover proceeding brought against a Section 8 tenant.

Shulman, J.E, Hunter, Jr. and Torres, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Misc. 3d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beautiful-village-associates-redevelopment-co-v-gomez-nyappterm-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack