Myung-Ja Melton v Malcolm Shabazz, LP

Annotate this Case
[*1] Myung-Ja Melton v Malcolm Shabazz, LP 2017 NY Slip Op 51683(U) Decided on December 12, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570662/17

Myung-Ja Melton, Petitioner-Tenant

against

Malcolm Shabazz, LP, Respondent-Landlord-Respondent.

Petitioner-tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated November 4, 2016, which granted her motion to restore the Housing Part ("HP") enforcement proceeding and ordered respondent-landlord to install a proper drawer in tenant's kitchen cabinet.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated November 4, 2016, dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner-tenant is not aggrieved by the November 4, 2016 order from which she appeals, since she was afforded the full relief that she requested, namely, to restore the HP proceeding to the calendar and to direct respondent-landlord to correct the remaining violation by replacing the defective kitchen cabinet drawer. To the extent that petitioner's motion papers raised the issue of a sewage backup, a matter not referenced in the violation report, petitioner informed the court on the return date of the motion that the sewage condition was no longer at issue, and did not request any further relief with regard to any such condition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed (see CPLR 5511; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 60 NY2d 539 [1983]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or involve matters dehors the record.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 12, 2017

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.