333 E. 34th, LLC v Rubinson

Annotate this Case
[*1] 333 E. 34th, LLC v Rubinson 2010 NY Slip Op 50932(U) [27 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 25, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 25, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570633/09.

333 East 34th, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Elisa Rubinson, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.

Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered May 22, 2009, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.


Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered May 22, 2009, affirmed, with $25 costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that tenant engaged in a recurring and continuing pattern of objectionable conduct constituting a nuisance (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3[b]; Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117 [2003]). The record establishes that on at least two occasions tenant allowed the gas in her stove to leak, requiring the fire department to respond on the second such occasion, and that on another occasion tenant caused a fire in her apartment, once again requiring fire department intervention. Tenant's repeated conduct was properly found to have seriously threatened the safety of building occupants and staff, and to have created an actionable nuisance (see 107-109 East 88th St. LLC v Nowillo, 13 Misc 3d 136[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52176[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]; see generally Cabrini Terrace Joint Venture v O'Brien, 71 AD3d 486 [2010]; cf. Vukovic v Wilson, 245 AD2d 1 [1997]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: May 25, 2010

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.