IN RE: CHI-AM REALTY (2006)

In a proceeding pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.3, inter alia, to recover possession of certain premises, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated March 1, 2005, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, Kings County (Alterman, J.), entered July 7, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated May 23, 2003, is in favor of the petitioner, among other things, awarding it possession.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Appellate Term properly affirmed the Civil Court's determination that the tenants permitted a nuisance by allowing their bathroom toilet to overflow on several occasions, causing water to flood into the apartment below (see 9 NYCRR 2524.3[b];  57-59 Second Ave. Corp. v. Yeung, 196 Misc.2d 1ii [A], 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 50124[U], 2002 WL 576074;  Smalkowski v. Vernon, 196 Misc.2d 1cxiv[A], 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 40071[U], *4, 2001 WL 914248;  Harran Holding Corp. v. Johnson, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 1, 1983, at 6, col. 3).   Furthermore, the tenants were not entitled to an opportunity to cure the nuisance, since the evidence established “a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct” (Frank v. Park Summit Realty Corp., 175 A.D.2d 33, 35, 573 N.Y.S.2d 655, mod. 79 N.Y.2d 789, 579 N.Y.S.2d 649, 587 N.E.2d 287) that “shows no sign of abating” (Whitehall Realty Co. v. Friedman, 5 Misc.3d 126(A), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51184[U], 2004 WL 2334331;  see Stratton Cooperative v. Fener, 211 A.D.2d 559, 621 N.Y.S.2d 77).

The tenants' remaining contentions are without merit.