Sorkin v Salazar

Annotate this Case
[*1] Sorkin v Salazar 2000 NY Slip Op 50005(U) Decided on October 13, 2000 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 13, 2000
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, Justices.


HARVEY SORKIN, HOWARD SORKIN and #00-144 ENCORE TOWER GROUP, LLC, Petitioner Landlord-Appellant,

against

JUNE SALAZAR, 414 West 44th Street New York, N.Y. 10036, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE", Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered July 13, 1999 (Rolando T. Acosta, J.) restoring tenant to possession on condition that tenant pay rental arrears in the amount of $5,745.71.


PER CURIAM:

Order entered July 13, 1999 (Rolando T. Acosta, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

Tenant, who has resided in the subject premises since 1979, promptly moved for restoration following her eviction. Her failure to timely pay the rent was due, at least in part, to attempts to obtain PSA assistance which ultimately failed, as well as delays encountered in [*2]attempting to obtain a stipend for the rent from DSS. Tenant was able to pay the full amount of rental arrears to landlord prior to her restoration. Given these circumstances, we find that Civil Court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the warrant of eviction and restoring tenant to possession of her apartment after the warrant was executed, on condition that tenant pay the full amount of rent due and incidental relief (Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 682). The court's order is amended to read that it is "without prejudice to petitioner's claim for rent increases related to new appliances and flooring, and attorneys' fees incurred in this litigation" (emphasis added).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: October 13, 2000

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.