Steinberg v. Parkash 2454 LLC
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 51812(U) (Steinberg v. Parkash 2454 LLC) 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.
Opinion
Steinberg v Parkash 2454 LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 51812(U)) [*1]
| Steinberg v Parkash 2454 LLC |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 51812(U) |
| Decided on November 19, 2025 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on November 19, 2025
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ.
570470/24
against
Parkash 2454 LLC and Ved Parkash, Respondents-Landlords-Appellants, and Department of Housing Preservation & Development, Respondent.
Respondents-landlords appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Malaika Scott-McLaughlin, J.), entered on or about May 15, 2023, after a hearing, which found that respondents-landlords breached the terms of a probationary stipulation, and awarded civil penalties and compensatory damages in a Housing Part (HP) proceeding.
Per Curiam.
Order (Malaika Scott-McLaughlin, J.), entered on or about May 15, 2023, affirmed, with $10 costs.
The stipulation of settlement entered into in this Housing Part proceeding provided, among other things, that respondents-landlords shall not engage in any acts of harassment toward petitioner-tenant, as that term is defined in section 27-2004 (a)(48) of the Administrative Code, during a one-year probationary period, and that respondents-landlords "shall be deemed to have violated" the stipulation if HPD issues a violation under Order No. 507 (leaky roof), Order No. 550 (mold) or Order No. 583 (water leak) during said probationary period.
Civil Court's finding, after a hearing, that respondents-landlords breached the terms of the stipulation rested upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell, 35 AD3d 153, 155 [2006]), including the HPD violations issued during the probationary period for mold (Order No. 550) and water leak (Order No. 583). The hearing court, which was in a position to assess the credibility of witnesses, rationally rejected respondents-landlords' contention that the mold and moisture conditions in the apartment were caused by petitioner-tenant (see Second 82nd Corp. v Veiders, 146 AD3d 696 [2017]).
We note that the corrected record on appeal is sufficient to permit appellate review of this matter.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 19, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 51812(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-parkash-2454-llc-nyappterm-2025.