201 W. 54th St. Buyer LLC. v Rodin

[*1] 201 W. 54th St. Buyer LLC. v Rodin 2015 NY Slip Op 50849(U) Decided on June 4, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570016/15

201 West 54th Street Buyer LLC., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, -

against

Walter Rodin, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, - and - "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from that portion of a final judgment of Civil Court, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2014, after a nonjury trial, which, in awarding possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding, afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2014, modified to vacate so much thereof as afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

The trial evidence shows that tenant, without prior notice to or approval from landlord, gutted the bathroom of the demised rent stabilized apartment by removing fixtures, the toilet, sink and walls from floor to ceiling, and was in the process of "breaking the bathtub and back wall" with jackhammer, without obtaining any permits or showing that he used a licensed contractor. Such unauthorized actions exposed the landlord to potential violations, fines and lawsuits and caused a lasting and permanent injury to landlord's reversionary interest, and, in our view, warranted the tenant's eviction (see 259 W. 12th, LLC v Grossberg, 28 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51314[U] [2010], affirmed 89 AD3d 585 [2011]; 230 E. 14th St. LLC v Klufas, 11 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50368[U} [2006]). The unlawful alterations effected by tenant's demolition of the existing bathroom- which were not shown to be necessary or a result of landlord's failure to make repairs- were not capable of meaningful cure and tenant was not entitled to "any stay for the purpose of correcting an uncorrectable breach" (259 W. 12th, LLC v Grossberg, 89 AD3d 585 [2011]).

Tenant's defense that he was authorized to do the demolition based upon a conversation [*2]with what was essentially a handyman, directly employed by a third-party, was properly rejected by the trial court, given the credited testimony that tenant attempted to bribe the building superintendent to "look the other way" when the superintendent discovered the work undertaken by the tenant. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 04, 2015