Glencord Bldg. Corp. v Strujan

Annotate this Case
[*1] Glencord Bldg. Corp. v Strujan 2010 NY Slip Op 50227(U) [26 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on February 17, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 17, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570466/09.

Glencord Building Corp. and Giustizia Aggressivo, LLC, as Tenants-in-Common, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Elena Strujan, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- "John Doe," Respondent-Undertenant.

Tenant appeals from a "decision and order" of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2009, after a nonjury trial, which granted landlord possession and a recovery of rent arrears in the principal sum of $17,966.20 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.


Per Curiam.

Appeal from a "decision and order" (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2009, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same Judge), entered May 21, 2009, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment affirmed, without costs.

According due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), we find no cause to disturb the court's resolution of the rent and habitability issues litigated below, issues premised upon tenant's claims that she was without a working stove for a substantial time period and that there were carbon monoxide leaks in her apartment. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, support's the court's express finding that tenant was only entitled to a modest rent abatement because "[tenant] has been obstructive in allowing [landlord] access to inspect and repair any alleged conditions in the subject premises...[and that tenant] was provided with four new stoves from December 2006 through the date of trial."

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 17, 2010

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.