CARRASQUILLO v. 303 WEST 122ND STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Khan, III, J.), entered October 15, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, as plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits (CPLR 6301;  see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166 [1990];  Janet Transit, Inc. v. Mott Haven Improvement Group LP, 231 A.D.3d 516, 516–17, 218 N.Y.S.3d 318 [1st Dept. 2024];  Borenstein v. Rochel Props., 176 A.D.2d 171, 172, 574 N.Y.S.2d 192 [1st Dept. 1991]).  “In order to prove a claim for breach of the warranty of habitability, plaintiffs must show the extensiveness of the breach, the manner in which it affected the health, welfare or safety of the tenants, and the measures taken by the landlord to alleviate the violation” (Diamond v. New York City Hous. Auth., 179 A.D.3d 525, 527, 118 N.Y.S.3d 77 [1st Dept. 2020]).  Applying those factors, we find that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendants breached the warranty of habitability.  The cited violations were largely corrected, and plaintiff failed to give access to her unit to make other repairs, including installation of her stove.  Nor was the notice to cure defective, as it contained a good faith accounting of total maintenance due;  described the period that defendant alleges she was in default;  provided instructions for how to cure;  and explained the consequences for noncompliance (see Filmtrucks, Inc. v Express Indus. & Term. Corp., 127 A.D.2d 509, 510, 511 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1st Dept. 1987] [“[t]he purpose of a notice to cure is to specifically apprise the tenant of claimed defaults in its obligations under the lease and of the forfeiture and termination of the lease if the claimed default is not cured within a set period of time”]).

Once the court found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it did not need to address whether she demonstrated irreparable injury or whether the balance of the equities tips in her favor (see Metropolitan Steel Indus., Inc. v. Perini Corp., 50 A.D.3d 321, 322, 855 N.Y.S.2d 441 [1st Dept. 2008]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.