542 E. 14th St., LLC v Moses

[*1] 542 E. 14th St., LLC v Moses 2012 NY Slip Op 52349(U) Decided on December 24, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570313/11.

542 East 14th Street, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, - -

against

Andrew Moses, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, - and - "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents.

Landlord, as limited by its briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated February 17, 2010, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that tenant was constructively evicted from his apartment from April 1, 2008 through July 31, 2009.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated February 17, 2010, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same court and Judge), entered February 17, 2010, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), final judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's finding that, even after landlord's completion of extensive structural repairs that required tenant's temporary relocation, tenant was unable to resume occupancy because the apartment was left in an "appalling condition," with mice infestation, "black slime" on the furniture, a foul odor, and dust and construction debris throughout the apartment. These factual findings amply support the court's ultimate conclusion that tenant was constructively evicted from the apartment premises until major clean-up efforts were undertaken at landlord's expense nearly a year and a half later (see Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77, 83 [1970]; Minjak v Randolph, 140 AD2d 245 [1988]).

The record discloses no evidentiary error warranting reversal. A proper foundation was established for the admission of photographs, since the witness testified that the photographs accurately represented the conditions in the apartment during the relevant time period (see Corsi v Town of Bedford, 58 AD3d 225 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 714 [2009]).

We have considered landlord's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 24, 2012