New York City Hous. Auth. v Eaddy

Annotate this Case
[*1] New York City Hous. Auth. v Eaddy 2005 NYSlipOp 50617(U) Decided on April 25, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 25, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.


NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, (BAILEY AVENUE-WEST 193RD STREET570101/04 Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

SANDRA EADDY, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, entered November 13, 2003 after a nonjury trial (Marian C. Doherty, J.) which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:

Final judgment entered November 13, 2003 (Marian C. Doherty, J.) affirmed, with $25 costs.

Evidence at trial established that police, in the course of executing a search warrant issued for the subject public housing apartment, recovered several items of contraband, including two bags of marihuana and several strainers containing cocaine residue found in the living room, and a loaded handgun found in the bedroom closet. Arrested inside the apartment was an individual (Brown) who was described by tenant as her "significant other," and who admittedly identified the premises as his residence when questioned by police and ultimately pleaded guilty to reduced charges of unlawful possession of marihuana. The evidence, fairly interpreted, thus supports the dual findings that the apartment was being used for illegal purposes (see RPAPL 711[5]) and that tenant "knew or should have known of the activities and acquiesced therein" (Matter [*2]
of 88-09 Realty, LLC v Hill, 305 AD2d 409 [2003]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur
Decision Date: April 25, 2005

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.