Malize v New York City Hous. Auth.

[*1] Malize v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 52196(U) Decided on November 30, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 30, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
12-329.

Theodore Malize, Petitioner-Tenant-Appellant,

against

New York City Housing Authority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor Houses, Respondent-Landlord-Respondent.

Petitioner-tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (José Rodríguez, J.), dated February 8, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition in a Housing Part enforcement proceeding and denied his application for a rent abatement.

Per Curiam.

Order (José Rodríguez, J.), dated February 8, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

We sustain the hearing court's dismissal of this Housing Part enforcement proceeding, since the record supports the court's express finding that, with one minor exception, the violations in the apartment premises were corrected. With respect to the one outstanding item - a bathroom ceiling that required repainting - the record supports the court's credibility-based finding that the petitioning tenant denied respondent-landlord access to correct this condition, which was not shown to be a rent impairing violation (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 301-a[2][a]) or a condition dangerous or detrimental to tenant's health, safety or welfare (see Park West Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 327-328 [1979]).

We also sustain the denial of petitioner's application for a rent abatement. To the extent that any rent issues were put into play in this HP proceeding by dint of the parties' May 18, 2011 stipulation (cf. Elshiekh v 76th Street Owners Corp., 36 Misc 3d 139[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51453[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept 2012]), the court's fully supported finding that tenant denied access warrants the denial of a further abatement.

Tenant's apparent contention that the court demonstrated bias against him is both unpreserved and unsupported by the record.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: November 30, 2012