Jacob v Sealey

Annotate this Case
[*1] Jacob v Sealey 2015 NY Slip Op 51578(U) Decided on October 30, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 30, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570793/15

George Jacob, -Landlord-Appellant,

against

Jalah Sealey, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord, as limited by his brief, appeals from that portion of a "decision and order" of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Andrew Lehrer, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2014, after a nonjury trial, which limited his recovery of rent arrears to the principal sum of $6,887.14 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a "decision and order" (Andrew Lehrer, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2014, deemed an appeal from the final judgment (Timmie Erin Elsner, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2014, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), final judgment modified by increasing landlord's recovery to the sum of $6,937.14; as modified, final judgment affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the trial record, we are satisfied that the trial court properly resolved the rent and habitability issues litigated below, and that a decrease in the amount of the abatement award in tenant's favor is unwarranted. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supported the court's detailed factual findings that tenant's "stove was defective, resulting in emission of a gas smell, and that the conditions of the stove rendered it unusable until February 2014." The amount of the abatement was within reasonable limits and is not disturbed.

We modify only to the extent of increasing the amount of late fees as indicated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 30, 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.