Los Tres Unidos Associates, LP v. Mercado

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Los Tres Unidos Associates, LP v. Mercado

44 Misc. 3d 5, 988 N.Y.S.2d 404

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 11, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 44 Misc. 3d 5 (Los Tres Unidos Associates, LP v. Mercado) 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

Los Tres Unidos Associates, LP v. Mercado, 44 Misc. 3d 5, 988 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered on or about February 17, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

We sustain the dismissal after trial of this holdover eviction proceeding, petitioner landlord having failed to establish by competent evidence that tenant violated paragraph 23 (c) (3) of the governing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lease agreement, which authorized landlord to terminate the lease in the event that tenant or persons within specified categories engaged in “drug-related criminal activity” in or near the building premises. The landlord’s trial presentation consisted largely of its admission into evidence of a certificate of disposition issued by the Criminal Court of the City of New York indicating that, on June 23, 2011, tenant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of marihuana under Penal Law § 221.05, a violation, and tenant’s testimony acknowledging the above conviction. The only evidence specifically bearing on the facts underlying the conviction was tenant’s perfunctory testimony — elicited on the landlord’s case-in-chief — that he was stopped or “grabbed” by a single police officer as he exited the building and that the officer’s search yielded one bag containing an unspecified amount of marihuana. Without more, landlord’s sparse evidence was insufficient to meet its burden of showing that tenant engaged in “[d]rug-related criminal activity,” a term defined under governing federal regulations as “the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, or use of a drug, or possession of a drug with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute or use the drug” (24 CFR 5.100). On this limited record, and absent any proof concerning the background facts or circumstances surrounding tenant’s arrest, his intent vis-a-vis the marihuana is not properly inferable, and thus no breach of the federally [7]*7mandated lease provision here at issue — requiring possession accompanied by an unlawful intent — was shown.

Lowe, III, EJ., and Shulman, J., 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 on or about February 17, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

We sustain the dismissal after trial of this holdover eviction proceeding, petitioner landlord having failed to establish by competent evidence that tenant violated paragraph 23 (c) (3) of the governing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lease agreement, which authorized landlord to terminate the lease in the event that tenant or persons within specified categories engaged in “drug-related criminal activity” in or near the building premises. The landlord’s trial presentation consisted largely of its admission into evidence of a certificate of disposition issued by the Criminal Court of the City of New York indicating that, on June 23, 2011, tenant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of marihuana under Penal Law § 221.05, a violation, and tenant’s testimony acknowledging the above conviction. The only evidence specifically bearing on the facts underlying the conviction was tenant’s perfunctory testimony — elicited on the landlord’s case-in-chief — that he was stopped or “grabbed” by a single police officer as he exited the building and that the officer’s search yielded one bag containing an unspecified amount of marihuana. Without more, landlord’s sparse evidence was insufficient to meet its burden of showing that tenant engaged in “[d]rug-related criminal activity,” a term defined under governing federal regulations as “the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, or use of a drug, or possession of a drug with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute or use the drug” (24 CFR 5.100). On this limited record, and absent any proof concerning the background facts or circumstances surrounding tenant’s arrest, his intent vis-a-vis the marihuana is not properly inferable, and thus no breach of the federally [7]*7mandated lease provision here at issue — requiring possession accompanied by an unlawful intent — was shown.

Lowe, III, EJ., and Shulman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Misc. 3d 5, 988 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/los-tres-unidos-associates-lp-v-mercado-nyappterm-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack