Riverbay Corp. v. Hart

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Riverbay Corp. v. Hart

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51713(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Riverbay Corp. v. Hart (Riverbay Corp. v. Hart) 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

Riverbay Corp. v. Hart, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Riverbay Corporation, Petitioner-Landlord-

against

Eugene Hart, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Petitioner cooperative appeals, as limited by its briefs, from so much of a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Kimon C. Thermos, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2018, after nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Kimon C. Thermos, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2018, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Giving due deference to the trial court's detailed findings of fact and credibility, we find no cause to disturb the court's ultimate determination that respondent did not breach a substantial obligation of the tenancy by violating House Rule 15, which proscribes "interfer[ing] with the rights, comforts, or convenience of the other members" (see generally Tsangarinos v Attaway, 43 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50848[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]; CDC Dev. Co. III LLC v Rivera, 8 Misc 3d 132[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51151[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]). While the trial record shows that respondent displayed a firearm, the trial court expressly found that he did so only in an effort "to protect his own safety" against a non-resident assailant who "ruthlessly attacked him" minutes earlier in two separate incidents at the building premises and "used a weapon upon him to inflict serious bodily harm," requiring respondent, a senior citizen, to be hospitalized for three days. The trial court correctly concluded that respondents' actions in this isolated incident, though neither wise nor prudent, did not amount to a breach of a substantial obligation of the tenancy warranting eviction, especially given that they were not directed against another member or a member of a cooperator's family, and that respondent "is not a menace or continuing threat to anyone in the building" (compare 14 Morningside Ave. H.D.F.C. v Murray, 53 Misc 3d 149[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51667[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 24, 2019

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

Riverbay Corporation, Petitioner-Landlord-

against

Eugene Hart, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Petitioner cooperative appeals, as limited by its briefs, from so much of a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Kimon C. Thermos, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2018, after nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Kimon C. Thermos, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2018, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Giving due deference to the trial court's detailed findings of fact and credibility, we find no cause to disturb the court's ultimate determination that respondent did not breach a substantial obligation of the tenancy by violating House Rule 15, which proscribes "interfer[ing] with the rights, comforts, or convenience of the other members" (see generally Tsangarinos v Attaway, 43 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50848[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]; CDC Dev. Co. III LLC v Rivera, 8 Misc 3d 132[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51151[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]). While the trial record shows that respondent displayed a firearm, the trial court expressly found that he did so only in an effort "to protect his own safety" against a non-resident assailant who "ruthlessly attacked him" minutes earlier in two separate incidents at the building premises and "used a weapon upon him to inflict serious bodily harm," requiring respondent, a senior citizen, to be hospitalized for three days. The trial court correctly concluded that respondents' actions in this isolated incident, though neither wise nor prudent, did not amount to a breach of a substantial obligation of the tenancy warranting eviction, especially given that they were not directed against another member or a member of a cooperator's family, and that respondent "is not a menace or continuing threat to anyone in the building" (compare 14 Morningside Ave. H.D.F.C. v Murray, 53 Misc 3d 149[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51667[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 24, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Riverbay Corp. v. Hart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverbay-corp-v-hart-nyappterm-2019.