Peters v Owens

Annotate this Case
[*1] Peters v Owens 2015 NY Slip Op 50930(U) Decided on June 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570386/15

Gemmine Peters, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Elaine Owens, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered August 26, 2014, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Jack Stoller, J.), entered August 26, 2014, affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Jack Stoller, J. at Civil Court.

There is ample record evidence to sustain the trial court's express factual findings that tenant committed a nuisance by engaging, over a period of years, in a pattern of objectionable behavior at the building premises (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3[b]; Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117 [2003]), including repeated instances of verbally abusive and physically violent conduct towards the property manager - conduct which resulted in tenant's conviction for second degree harassment, the issuance of a two-year order of protection against her, and necessitated the manager's retention of a private security guard. The court appropriately recognized that tenant's belligerent and aggressive behavior placed an intolerable burden on neighboring tenants and building staff, and balanced the rights of those individuals in awarding landlord a possessory judgment (see Frank v Park Summit Realty Corp., 175 AD2d 33, 35—36 [1991], mod on other grounds 79 NY2d 789 [1991]; Pinehurst Constr. Corp. v Schlesinger, 38 AD3d 474, 475 [2007]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: June 19, 2015

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.