You are here: / IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST...

Search Results

/ , , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenants stated claims for tenant (statutory) harassment, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with failure to provide electricity, water, heat and ventilation:

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-2005 (d) and 27-2115 (m) … . Namely, it sufficiently alleges that defendants failed to provide essential services, including electricity, water, heat, and ventilation, resulting in violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, and that that failure was calculated to and did cause plaintiffs to vacate their apartment … . …

Defendants do not oppose the reinstatement of the claims for private nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress, opting to litigate those claims on the merits. However, contrary to defendants’ contention, punitive damages may be appropriate under both causes of action if the alleged acts are shown to be intentional or malicious … . Carlson v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/ , ,

WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. A police officer pursuing another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger as the driver (Williams) was slowing down for a work crew:

Williams’s evidence in support of his motion demonstrated prima facie that he was operating his vehicle in a lawful, reasonable manner given the circumstances on the expressway at the time, and that he was not otherwise culpable in causing the police car to strike the rear of his vehicle. The burden having shifted, plaintiff and the City defendants each failed to offer evidence as would raise a factual issue regarding Williams’s comparable negligence in the cause of the accident … . The City defendants failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for rear-ending Williams’s vehicle, and the claim that the rear-ended vehicle stopped short, standing alone, is insufficient as a nonnegligent explanation for an accident … . Regardless of whether the actions of the police in this incident are to be considered under the reckless standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, the nonliability of Williams, given the unrefuted evidence of his nonculpable role in this accident, remains unchanged … . Grant v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01121, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/ , ,

THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT PROHIBIT A POLICY (THE “REF” POLICY) TYING A TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS’ SALARY-REDUCTION TO THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS PROCURED IN A GIVEN YEAR; THE REF POLICY WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE; A SPECIFIC SALARY FIGURE IN A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER’S CONTRACT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE REF POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice OIng, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) the term “economic security” in the faculty handbook was prefatory language that did not prohibit the university (NYU) from tying salary reductions for tenured faculty to the amount of grant-money procured by a faculty member (the REF policy); (2) the salary reductions were not part of disciplinary procedure; and (3) the provision in the contract with one of the faculty members, Samuels, setting his salary at a specific amount prohibited the salary reductions tied to grants as to him:

Assuming that the term “economic security” gives rise to contractual rights, we reject the argument advanced by the Professors and amici curiae that “economic security” is an ambiguous term of art and that custom and usage in academia define it as prohibiting retroactive salary reductions pursuant to such policies as the REF Policy. * * *

A faculty member’s failure to comply with the REF Policy is simply not conduct that is subject to discipline. * * *

We find that NYU breached the terms of the “2001 Contract” when it reduced Professor Samuels’s salary pursuant to the REF Policy and that he is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Monaco v New York Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 01125, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING WAS INSECURE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHETHER THERE WAS SAFETY EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS NOT USED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE IT, IS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. There were no witnesses to plaintiff’s scaffold-fall. Plaintiff testified the unsecured scaffold moved when he started using the chipping gun and the unsecured plywood on which he was standing caused him to lose his balance. The fact that there may have been scaffold railings available and the evidence plaintiff was instructed to use the railings did not defeat summary judgment because comparative negligence is not part of the analysis:

The purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1) “is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor. . . instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Thus, the statute imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide “devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to” those individuals performing the work … . “Under Labor Law § 240 (1) it is conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a plaintiff’s injury) to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff’s sole proximate cause for the injury” … . Therefore, if a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it … . * * * [E]ven if there were evidence that adequate safety devices were readily available at the work site and that plaintiff knew he was expected to use them, it would not render plaintiff the sole cause of the accident, because the unsecured scaffold with unlevel, uneven, and unsecured floor planks initially caused him to lose his balance and fall …”. Quiroz v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 2022 NY Slip Op 01130, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/ ,

THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION BE STATED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE; EVICTION ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the landlord did not comply with the HUD regulation requiring that a notice of termination of a lease state the reasons for the termination with enough specificity to allow the tenant to mount a defense. The issue was raised by respondent-tenant’s oral general denial:

In our view, the notice of termination was deficient, as it did not set forth the factual predicates underlying the alleged violation of the lease terms, instead merely paraphrasing the lease and the underlying regulation … . No specific incident is described in the notice, nor are any specific facts. The regulatory standard of requiring “enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense” demands more detail as to the nature of the asserted misconduct (24 CFR 247.4 [a] [2]). Matter of Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v Buchanan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01087, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

/

THE BOARD ACCEPTED ONE EXPERT’S OPINION AND REJECTED THE OTHER BASED ON AN ISSUE THE EXPERTS WERE NEVER ASKED ABOUT; DECISION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board relied on an issue the experts were never asked about. One expert (Katz) found that claimant lost 3.3% of his hearing and the other (Alleva) found claimant had lost 45.3% of his hearing. The Board rejected Alleva’s opinion and adopted Katz’s concluding claimant had not explained how he could have done his job with a 50% hearing loss, an issue not discussed by the experts:

Although ‘[t]he Board’s authority in assessing the credibility of witnesses includes the power to selectively adopt or reject portions of a medical expert’s opinion, . . . as with any administrative determination, the Board’s decision in this regard must be supported by substantial evidence” … . There is no evidence in the record that Alleva was asked to explain how claimant was able to work with a 45.3% loss of hearing. Nor is there any evidence in the record that the issue of whether claimant’s hearing loss would have affected his job performance was ever raised by either party or their medical experts before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. In light of the dearth of evidence supporting the conclusions reached by the Board, we cannot say that its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Matter of Mogilevsky v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01088, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

/ ,

ALLOWING THE PEOPLE’S INVESTIGATOR TO GO INTO THE JURY ROOM DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SHOW THE JURORS HOW TO OPERATE A DIGITAL RECORDER WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE THE DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE PROCEDURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the People’s investigator should not have been allowed to go into the jury room during deliberations to show the jurors how to operate a digital recorder. Although the defendant consented to the procedure, the Third Department decided the error was a “mode of proceedings” error which did not require preservation:

Pursuant to CPL 310.10 (1), a deliberating jury must be “under the supervision of a court officer” or “an appropriate public servant” and, “[e]xcept when so authorized by the court or when performing administerial duties with respect to the jurors, such court officer[] or public servant[] . . . may not speak to or communicate with [the jurors] or permit any other person to do so” … . Certainly, the People’s investigator cannot be said to be an appropriate public servant to interact with the jury in the deliberation room. Also troubling is the lack of a record of what occurred while the investigator was in the deliberation room. Indeed, the “right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice’ and essential to a fair trial. At the heart of this right is the need to ensure that jury deliberations are conducted in secret, and not influenced or intruded upon by outside factors” … . Given that the procedure that occurred here, allowing a representative of the People to interfere in the jury’s secret deliberations, goes “to the essential validity of the process and [is] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted”… , we must reverse and remit for a new trial.  People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 01069, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacated defendant’s resentence. Once a defendant is sentenced, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. Here, after it was determined defendant had willfully failed to pay the ordered restitution, defendant was resentenced to prison on the original conviction. By statute a defendant may be resentenced for failure pay restitution, but only after the court makes a finding the defendant is unable to pay due to indigency. No such finding was made here:

CPL 420.10 (3) provides that, when a court imposes restitution as part of a defendant’s sentence, the court can imprison the defendant if he or she fails to pay restitution; such provision authorizing imprisonment for failure to pay restitution can be set forth at the time of sentencing or may be added “at any later date while the . . . restitution . . . or any part thereof remains unpaid” (CPL 420.10 [3]). Although County Court therefore retained jurisdiction under the auspices of this statute, it erred in resentencing defendant pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5). As relevant here, CPL 420.10 (5) provides that, “[i]n any case where the defendant is unable to pay a fine, restitution or reparation imposed by the court, he [or she] may at any time apply to the court for resentence.” Resentencing is authorized “if the court is satisfied that the defendant is unable to pay the fine, restitution or reparation” (CPL 420.10 [5]). Here, there was no finding by the court that defendant was unable to pay the restitution due to indigency … . … [W]e refuse to equate defendant’s acceptance of the global agreement [agreeing to 81/2 to 25 years in prison including time served] with the application necessary to resentence him under CPL 420.10 (5) … . County Court could have sentenced defendant to a year in prison for his failure to pay under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4), but it did not. As it erred in utilizing CPL 420.10 (5), the resentence must be vacated. People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 01070, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

/ , , ,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined: (1) defendant was entitled to and did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the SORA risk-level proceeding (which is civil in nature). despite his decision not to appear; and (2) the SORA judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law, requiring remittal:

Despite SORA proceedings being civil in nature, not criminal … , we now join the Second Department in explicitly holding that SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]) would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant’s liberty interest … .

… Although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, he did not waive his right to contest the Board’s risk level recommendation or the People’s arguments and proof … . Counsel — who acknowledged at the hearing that he had “had no contact” with defendant — made no arguments, essentially agreed to the Board’s recommendation, and failed to require the People to admit any proof at the hearing or County Court to provide any reasoning for its determination. … The record … reveals that counsel, who did not communicate with his client at all and “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication,” did not provide effective representation … . As defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, upon remittal he is entitled to a new hearing with different assigned counsel. People v VonRapacki, 2022 NY Slip Op 01071, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy