PINEHURST CONSTRUCTION CORP v. “John Doe,” etc., Respondent.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

PINEHURST CONSTRUCTION CORP., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Eva SCHLESINGER, Respondent-Appellant, “John Doe,” etc., Respondent.

Decided: March 29, 2007

ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, BUCKLEY, SWEENY, CATTERSON, JJ. Stephen H. Weiner, New York, for appellant. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered April 25, 2006, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Laurie L. Lau, J.), entered May 10, 2004, awarding possession of the subject apartment to petitioner landlord, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Landlord's notice of termination alleged that it had received complaints from “other occupants of the building” that “at various times of the day and night” tenant had “create[d] loud banging noises” and yelled at, intimidated and verbally harassed “other persons in the building.”   Such allegations, although setting forth no names, dates or specific instances of the misconduct, describe a nuisance in violation of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.3(b) (see Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich, 1 N.Y.3d 117, 124-125, 769 N.Y.S.2d 785, 802 N.E.2d 135 [2003] ) with sufficient detail to have allowed tenant to prepare a defense (see City of New York v. Valera, 216 A.D.2d 237, 628 N.Y.S.2d 695 [1995] ) and otherwise satisfy the specificity requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.2(b).  Further information, i.e., the written complaints referred to by landlord in its notice of termination, was appropriately provided in its bill of particulars (see Valera, 216 A.D.2d at 238, 628 N.Y.S.2d 695).   A fair interpretation of the evidence supports Civil Court's findings, largely based on witness credibility, that tenant persistently “inflict[ed] vicious retribution” against the overhead tenants for “the slightest infraction of her rules” against noise by “screaming and pounding [the ceiling] throughout the night,” interfering substantially with the overhead tenants' comfort, safety and ordinary use and enjoyment of their apartment (see Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 591 N.Y.S.2d 978, 606 N.E.2d 1369 [1992] ).   We have considered tenant's other arguments, including those related to her unsigned, posttrial order to show cause seeking to reopen the trial, and find them unavailing.