Community Hous. Innovations, Inc. v Ippolito

[*1] Community Hous. Innovations, Inc. v Ippolito 2011 NY Slip Op 51669(U) Decided on September 13, 2011 District Court of Nassau County, First District Fairgrieve, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 13, 2011
District Court of Nassau County, First District

Community Housing Innovations, Inc., Petitioner(s)

against

Thomas Ippolito, Respondent(s)



LT-005958-10

 

Meyer, Meyer, Melti & Keneally Esqs, LLP, Attorneys for Petitioner, P.O. Box 28 Manor Road, Smithtown, New York 11787, 631-265-4500; Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, Committee Inc., Attorneys for Respondent, One Helen Keller Way, 5th Floor, Hempstead, New York 11550, 516-292-8100.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

The petitioner, Community Housing Innovations, Inc., moves for an order granting it a judgment of possession, warrant of eviction without a stay and a money judgment for use and occupancy. The respondent has served an answer to the motion

On October 14, 2010, the respondent was served with a Notice of Petition and Petition. On December 7, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. The petitioner agreed to stay the warrant through June 7, 2011 and agreed respondent's tenancy would only be reinstated in the event he remained drug free for the entire six month stay period.

Rosemary Dehlow, an authorized agent of the petitioner, states that on February 15, 2011 a senior manager of Supportive Housing was notified that the respondent tested positive for illegal drug use which is a violation of the lease and the stipulation of settlement. On the following day the manager received an incident report regarding the respondent's altercation with his roommate. On the 17th of February the senior manager received an intake report from the supported housing program, Central Nassau Guidance & Counseling Services, Inc., outlining respondent's repeated drug use, violent tendencies, and intended continuation of the same. Petitioner contends that the motion should be granted as the respondent has repeatedly failed to remain drug free during the stay period and that it is in the interest of justice to protect the well being of the other tenants in the premises. [*2]

Defense counsel admits that the respondent had a lapse into drug use during the winter of 2010-2011, after the death of his brother on December 22, 2010. He has since enrolled in an intensive detoxification and rehabilitation program which he continues to attend. Counsel has submitted as Exhibit "B" a letter dated July 11, 2011, addressed to the Court from the Nassau Alternative Counseling Center regarding the respondent. The letter states that the respondent was referred to this outpatient clinic by the Court Intervention Project and was seen on April 15, 2011 for evaluation and treatment planning. The respondent was admitted to the Intensive Treatment Program (ITP) with the following requirements: attendance at group therapy four times; weekly individual counseling; and submission to random toxicology screens. The respondent has attended his assigned programs for a total of 29 sessions from April 26, 2011 until July 7, 2011.

The Court notes that the housing which is at issue in this proceeding is funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through a payment to the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) directed to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court notes that the respondent entered into a lease with the petitioner on July 24, 2002.

Parties are usually free to chart their own course of litigation including resolution of their dispute by stipulation. However, it is also well settled that Courts retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of a stipulation especially where an unjust or inequitable result may occur.

In this action the respondent's counsel acknowledged the illegal drug use by her client during the stay period. Respondent's counsel acknowledges this fact. While the Court will not condone the respondent's actions during his lapse, it is not without explanation, that being the death of his brother. It is also evident from the report of the Nassau Alternative Counseling Center that since April 26, 2011 the respondent has been attending his assigned program with treatment objectives to attain a knowledge about the disease of chemical addictions; to maintain abstinence from alcohol and all other mood altering substances; and to develop viable relapse prevention strategies and incorporate them into daily living.

After reviewing the papers before it and measuring the respondent's lapse against the harsh result of the respondent being evicted from the supportive housing program which has been his home for over nine years, the Court will not grant the

petitioner's motion for a judgment of possession, warrant of eviction without stay and a money judgment.

So Ordered:

/s/ Hon. Scott Fairgrieve

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE [*3]

Dated:September 13, 2011

CC:Meyer, Meyer & Keneally, Esqs., LLP

Nassau/Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc.

SF/mp