Modon v New York City Hous. Authority/Red Hook E. Houses

[*1] Modon v New York City Hous. Authority/Red Hook E. Houses 2005 NY Slip Op 51522(U) [9 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on September 20, 2005 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 20, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ.
2003-1541 K C

Dario Modon, Appellant, THE

against

New York City Housing Authority/red Hook East Houses, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alex M. Calabrese, J.), entered September 17, 2003. The order denied tenant's motion to hold landlord, the New York City Housing Authority, in contempt of court and dismissed his HP proceeding.

Order affirmed without costs.

In order to hold the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in civil contempt of the court's lawful repair and monitoring orders, tenant must show, inter alia, that his rights were prejudiced through NYCHA's disobedience of one or more of the orders (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226 [1994]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574 [1983]). Tenant made no showing that NYCHA "took action, in violation of a court order, which was 'calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede or prejudice' [his] rights" (Home Surplus of Brooklyn v Home Surplus, 3 AD3d 472, 473 [2004]; Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar v Kahana, 308 AD2d 447 [2003]). Moreover, the court below properly found that NYCHA had made a reasonable effort to comply with its orders over a five-month period, taking temperature readings of the hot water supply, making extensive attempts to locate the source of the problem, ensuring that the water line was functioning properly, making various repairs and enforcing building rules regarding water use in apartments on the water line (see New York Tel. Co. v Grandcom, Inc., 52 AD2d 830 [1976]).

Patterson, J.P., and Rios, J., concur. [*2]

Belen, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: September 20, 2005