Nyamekye v Madison

[*1] Nyamekye v Madison 2007 NY Slip Op 51847(U) [17 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on October 2, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 2, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ
.

Absylom Nyamekye, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, No.570690/06 -

against

Lucille Madison, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from 1) a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), entered March 27, 2006, which, inter alia, granted landlord's cross motion for summary judgment of possession, with issuance and execution of the warrant stayed 10 days to provide tenant an opportunity to cure; 2) an order (same court and Judge), dated July 7, 2006, which granted landlord's motion for issuance and execution of the warrant, unless tenant provided keys by a specified time and date; and 3) an order (same court and Judge), dated August 2, 2006, which granted landlord's motion for issuance and execution of the warrant.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), entered March 27, 2006, and orders (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), dated July 7, 2006 and August 2, 2006, affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be permanently stayed on condition that tenant, within ten days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, furnishes landlord with a duplicate key to all locks on the entrance door of her apartment.

Tenant breached a substantial obligation of her tenancy by failing to provide landlord with duplicate keys to her apartment's entrance door (Multiple Dwelling Law § 51-c; Lavant v Lovelace, 71 Misc 2d 974 [1972], aff'd 41 AD2d 905 [1973]). Although the record developed below leaves room for varying interpretation on the issue, it appears that tenant's most recent failure to afford landlord meaningful access was not merely a negligent oversight, but an intentional failure to cooperate. Without condoning tenant's conduct, we exercise our discretion and afford her a final opportunity to fully comply with the mandated access requirements, so as to avoid forfeiture of the tenancy. Tenant is cautioned that no further obstructionism on her part will be tolerated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 02, 2007