City of New York v. Philips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Philips

272 A.D.2d 568, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6033

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 568 (City of New York v. Philips) 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

City of New York v. Philips, 272 A.D.2d 568, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-706, the defendants Mike Philips and Alma Philips appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 3, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, permanently enjoined them from maintaining, or permitting the use or occupancy of the subject premises in violation of Penal Law articles 220 and 221 and directed them to pay costs of $1,000.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, while the eviction of a tenant whose conduct created a public nuisance pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-703 (g) may abate the nuisance, it does not render academic the plaintiffs entitlement to a permanent injunction pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-706 (see, City of New York v Mor, 261 AD2d 185; see also, City of New York v 924 Columbus Assocs., 219 AD2d 19). In addition, as the complaint sought equitable relief, the court properly [569]*569struck the appellants’ demand for a jury trial (see, Whipple v Trail Props., 261 AD2d 470; Adelstein v City of New York, 212 AD2d 748; City of New York v 114-25 Farmers Blvd., 178 Misc 2d 404).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-706, the defendants Mike Philips and Alma Philips appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 3, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, permanently enjoined them from maintaining, or permitting the use or occupancy of the subject premises in violation of Penal Law articles 220 and 221 and directed them to pay costs of $1,000.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, while the eviction of a tenant whose conduct created a public nuisance pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-703 (g) may abate the nuisance, it does not render academic the plaintiffs entitlement to a permanent injunction pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-706 (see, City of New York v Mor, 261 AD2d 185; see also, City of New York v 924 Columbus Assocs., 219 AD2d 19). In addition, as the complaint sought equitable relief, the court properly [569]*569struck the appellants’ demand for a jury trial (see, Whipple v Trail Props., 261 AD2d 470; Adelstein v City of New York, 212 AD2d 748; City of New York v 114-25 Farmers Blvd., 178 Misc 2d 404).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 568, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-philips-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack