Cabrini Terrace Joint Venture v. O'Brien

71 A.D.3d 486, 896 N.Y.S.2d 339
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 486 (Cabrini Terrace Joint Venture v. O'Brien) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cabrini Terrace Joint Venture v. O'Brien, 71 A.D.3d 486, 896 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered April 30, 2009, which affirmed a judgment, Civil Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2008, after a nonjury trial, awarding petitioner possession, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s findings, based largely on credibility, are not against the weight of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). The conditions in tenant’s apartment were properly found harmful to the health, safety and comfort of others based on testimony of roach and rodent infestation, clutter, offensive odors, and stacked newspapers and wiring in disarray, as well as of tenant’s refusal of access (see 12 Broadway Realty, LLC v Levites, 44 AD3d 372 [2007]; Zipper v Haroldon Ct. Condominium, 39 AD3d 325 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 919 [2007]; Stratton Coop, v Fener, 211 AD2d 559 [1995]). A posttrial opportunity to cure was properly denied upon a finding, based on the testimony and the trial court’s own inspection, that the nuisance conditions had existed over a substantial period, had not abated although tenant had been given ample opportunity to do so, and were unlikely to be abated (see Matter of Chi-Am Realty, LLC v Guddahl, 33 AD3d 911, 912 [2006], citing, inter alia, Stratton, 211 AD2d 559 [1995], supra; see also Zipper, 39 AD3d at 326). Tenant’s contentions regarding the admissibility of evidence are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 23 Misc 3d 136(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 50827(U).]

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

Related

Strata Realty Corp. v. Pena
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Prospect Union Assoc. v. DeJesus
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
222 E. 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan So
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
222 East 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan So
54 Misc. 3d 63 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
443 East 78 Realty LLC v. Tupas
48 Misc. 3d 52 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 486, 896 N.Y.S.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabrini-terrace-joint-venture-v-obrien-nyappdiv-2010.