Terrace v Hilliard

[*1] Terrace v Hilliard 2008 NY Slip Op 50260(U) [18 Misc 3d 1131(A)] Decided on February 11, 2008 Rochester City Ct Yacknin, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 11, 2008
Rochester City Ct

Andrews Terrace, Petitioner,

against

Alesia Hilliard, Respondent.



2008 LT 393



Ernest Santoro, Esq., for petitioner.

Monroe County Legal Assistance Center

(Robert Vitale, Esq., of counsel), for respondent.

Ellen M. Yacknin, J.

Petitioner Andrews Terrace Apartments seeks to evict respondent Alesia Hilliard from her apartment. Petitioner claims that respondent violated the terms of her lease by failing to keep her apartment neat and orderly, thereby threatening the health and safety of petitioner's tenants. Respondent denies the allegations, and denies that she has breached her lease.

A bench trial was held on January 28, 2008. Beth Hartman, the property manager for Andrews Terrace, Richard Gladding, an employee of Andrews Terrace, and Donna Burns, a security officer at Andrews Terrace, testified for petitioner. Respondent Alesia Hilliard, Adeline Hilliard, respondent's mother, and Donna Jean Koehler, respondent's friend, testified for respondent.

I find that the testimony of Beth Hartman and Donna Burns is credible. I find that the testimony of the other witnesses is partly credible, and partly not credible. Based on the credible testimony and documentary evidence, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Alesia Hilliard, who has lived in Andrews Terrace for twenty-six years, resides in her apartment with her eleven year old son. Ms. Hilliard is legally blind and has a number of other [*2]physical impairments that are so disabling that an home health aide attends to Ms. Hilliard five days a week.

Sometime in 2005, Andrews Terrace conducted its annual inspection of Ms. Hilliard's apartment. The apartment failed the inspection. After Ms. Hilliard cleaned the apartment, it passed reinspection and Ms. Hilliard's lease was renewed. On October 11, 2006, Andrews Terrace conducted another annual inspection of Ms. Hilliard's apartment. That inspection found that Ms. Hilliard's apartment was so filled with clutter, objects, and boxes that it created a safety and fire hazard. Andrews Terrace told Ms. Hilliard that she would not be permitted to stay unless she cleaned her apartment so that it was in compliance with her lease obligations.

Ms. Hilliard's apartment was reinspected for compliance on October 26, 2006. At that time, Ms. Hilliard's apartment passed the inspection, and Ms. Hilliard was permitted to stay in her apartment. She specifically agreed, however, to maintain her apartment in a clean and orderly condition as a condition of remaining a tenant.

In June 2007, Andrews Terrace began a major renovation project for all the apartments. Tenant meetings were held to discuss the renovations and what would be required of tenants to enable the apartments to be renovated, and tenants were sent written notices of the renovation and packing schedule. Tenants were advised that they would have to box their belongings and move their boxes to another location as necessary. Tenants were also advised in writing that if they needed help to pack or move their belongings, help would be provided. Thirty days before work was to begin in their apartments, tenants were sent written notices advising them to begin and complete their packing so that the renovation work could take place.

In November 2007, the renovation work reached the 12th floor, where Ms. Hilliard lives. Thirty days prior to work beginning on the 12th floor, all 12th floor tenants were advised to pack their belongings in boxes and have them moved so that the renovation work could be performed starting in the beginning of November 2007. All the tenants on the 12th floor, including Ms. Hilliard, were provided boxes and tape for their packing.

Ms. Hilliard attempted to pack her belongings as directed to prepare for the renovations. However, because of her disabilities and the large number of items she had, she needed assistance to pack. Ms. Hilliard requested help, but no help was provided. Notably, petitioner's witness, Richard Gladding, who was on the renovation coordinating team, testified that he never talked to Ms. Hilliard about anything related to the tenants' packing obligations, and never offered to provide Ms. Hilliard with any assistance.

On November 7, 2007, Donna Burns, Andrews Terrace security officer, accompanied someone from the rental office to conduct an inspection of Ms. Hilliard's apartment. The apartment was so cluttered with dozens of empty boxes, dozens of boxes filled with objects and clothing, and objects and clothing not in boxes that a person could not ove from one room of the apartment to another.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent asserts first that the notice to her did not provide her with adequate notice of the alleged factual violations of the lease provisions. The Court, however, finds that petitioner's Notice is sufficient. See Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117, 124 (2003).

To obtain the requested relief of eviction, petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent is an objectionable tenant as a result of her failure to comply with the terms of her lease. Specifically, petitioner alleged in its November 28, 2007 Notice to [*3]petitioner and its January 8, 2008 Petition that the condition of petitioner's apartment violates the health, safety and cleanliness lease requirements and fire codes.

Although disputed by petitioner, the Court finds that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the clutter, disorganization, and mess in respondent's apartment in November 2007 violated the most basic standards of neatness, cleanliness, and order. Plainly, there are vast differences between various persons' definitions of cleanliness and neatness. Some people believe that a living space is not clean and orderly unless every spice jar is labeled and organized alphabetically in the cabinets, and there is nothing on the counters. Others are entirely comfortable living in spaces in which the beds have not been made and last night's dirty dishes are still in the sink. However, the photographs of Ms. Hilliard's apartment that were taken on November 7, 2007 graphically demonstrate a level of clutter, disorganization and disarray that are beyond any reasonable standard of cleanliness and order for normal, routine and everyday living conditions.[FN1]

In November 2007, however the only time period for which any significant evidence of respondent's messy and cluttered apartment was presented the circumstances of Ms. Hilliard's residency were anything but ordinary or routine. To the contrary, in early November 2007, when Ms. Hilliard's apartment was inspected, Ms. Hilliard and the other tenants on the 12th floor faced major disruption to their living situations as a result of Andrews Terrace's major renovation project. Like the other tenants on the 12th floor, Ms. Hilliard was in the midst of having to pack virtually all her belongings in boxes and move them out of her apartment to accommodate the contractors.

Plainly, when families are in the middle of packing all their belongings, mess and clutter inevitably occur far more often than not. That Ms. Hilliard was, perhaps, less successful in packing her belongings in a neat and orderly fashion than other tenants might have been is not surprising given her blindness and other major physical disabilities. Although Ms. Hartman testified that packing help was available for tenants who needed it, there was no evidence whatsoever that anyone from Andrews Terrace ever offered to help Ms. Hilliard with her packing and moving. Indeed, Mr. Gladding testified that other than giving Ms. Hilliard boxes and tape, he never offered to help her.

The evidence presented at trial demonstrates, at most, that Ms. Hilliard did not pack her belongings as neatly, efficiently, and orderly as petitioner would have preferred to accommodate petitioner's renovation project. However, petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Hilliard failed to maintain her apartment in a neat and orderly condition during ordinary, routine everyday living circumstances.[FN2]

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, petitioner's application to evict respondent from her apartment for failure to comply with her obligation under her lease to maintain her [*4]apartment in a neat and orderly condition is denied.[FN3]

SO ORDERED.

February 11, 2008______________________________

Hon. Ellen M. Yacknin Footnotes

Footnote 1: Although Ms. Hartman testified about cockroaches in Ms. Hilliard's apartment in June 2007, that evidence was scant and does not demonstrate a lease violation.

Footnote 2: Likewise, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the condition of Ms. Hilliard's apartment violated any particular fire codes.

Footnote 3: Though not relevant at trial, the photographs of Ms. Hilliard's apartment as of January 28, 2008 reveal that Ms. Hilliard is able, if she wishes, to maintain her apartment in a neat and clean manner. Whether she does so in compliance with her lease, once the renovations to her apartment are completed and her living conditions return to normal, will be her choice. If she fails to do so, Andrews Terrace would be free to file another eviction action against Ms. Hilliard.