Gyasi v Antiwiwaa
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 25, 2018
Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
Reagan K. Gyasi,, Plaintiff,
against
Dora Antiwiwaa & NANA AWUAH SAKYI, Defendants.
CV-015884-18/BX
REAGAN K GYASI
Plaintiff, pro se.
DORA ANTWIWAA
Defendant, pro se.
NAN AWUAH SAKYI
Defendant, pro se.
Sabrina B. Kraus, J.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to a summons and endorsed complaint dated August 10, 2018, seeking $15,720.00 for "breach of contract or warranty" and for "illegal eviction, seized property and obstruction of mail."
Dora Antiwiwaa (Dora) and Nana Awuah Sakyi (Nana) appeared pro se and filed answers in August 2018, asserting general denials, and that no monies were owed.
The action was initially on the court's calendar on September 13, 2016. It was adjourned to October 18, 2018 for trial.
On October 18, 2018, the court held the trial and reserved decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
/i>
All three parties testified at the trial. Plaintiff testified that in the late summer or early fall of 2015, he made an agreement with Dora and Nana to rent a room in Apartment G at 1775 Walton Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10453 (Subject Premises).
The Subject Premises is a rent stabilized apartment. The landlord is 1785 Walton Avenue Associates LP. Dora is the rent stabilized tenant of record for said apartment. A one year renewal lease documenting Dora's tenancy was entered into evidence as Ex 2. The lease reflects a rental of $1123 for a one year period between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018.
Plaintiff had almost exclusive use of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff had his own bedroom, and shared the common arrears in the remainder of the Subject Premises with Dora, [*2]who was almost never there. Dora testified that she was away from the Subject Premises for extended periods because she works as a live in home attendant.
Plaintiff initially paid a rent of $500 per month, and later the rent was increased to $550 per month. Plaintiff made the rent payments to Nana. Plaintiff last paid rent for the Subject Premises in June 2017.
Nana and Plaintiff are family friends and come from the same country originally. Plaintiff testified that he and Nana moved into the Subject Premises together, and shared the apartment, however, Nana did not continue to live in the Subject Premises, after Plaintiff moved in.
On December 14, 2016, Plaintiff saw that an eviction notice for nonpayment of rent had been served on the Subject Premises. Nana assured Plaintiff that this was a mistake on the part of management. On or about December 20, 2016, Plaintiff left the Subject Premises and traveled outside of the country for approximately one month. Plaintiff left his room locked during this period. When he returned he saw that his room had been broken into and that his air conditioner and heater had been disconnected.
In late June or early July 2017, Plaintiff, Nana and Dora had a meeting in the living room of the Subject Premises. Dora demanded that Plaintiff surrender his key to the Subject Premises and he refused to do so. The next day Dora had a lock to the entrance door of the Subject Premises changed and refused to provide Plaintiff with a key.
Plaintiff went to the police, and was advised to pursue the matter in Housing Court.
Plaintiff filed papers to commence two actions in Housing Court. The Court takes judicial notice of said proceedings.
On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff commenced his first illegal lock out claim, which was marked as discontinued by the court on January 11, 2018, without any further explanation or notation.
On or about June 20, 2018, nearly one year after the eviction Plaintiff filed papers to commence a second proceeding under Index LT 0932665-18/BX. Plaintiff appeared before Judge Kimon Thomas, who declined to sign the order to show cause required to commence the proceeding, pursuant to a written order which provided that it was denied because Plaintiff was not seeking to be restored to possession but was seeking his property back, and that it had been nearly a year since the lockout.
There was also a small claims action brought by Dora against Plaintiff in March 2018. Dora sued Plaintiff for back rent allegedly due. The parties agreed to arbitration and the action was dismissed after the hearing before the arbitrator. The notation on the card for the small claims matter stated " LL evicted tenant & refused to allow him back in, domestic issue."
Plaintiff offered no evidence about the dollar amount of damages. The only testimony regarding property left by Plaintiff in the Subject Premises came from Dora, who testified that Plaintiff had taken most of his belongings except for a small refrigerator, a mattress, two pieces of luggage and a bicycle. Dora stated she was still in possession of this property.
To the extent that Plaintiff and Dora's testimony conflicted, the court credits the testimony of Plaintiff over Dora.
DISCUSSION
The court finds that Plaintiff was unlawfully evicted by Dora. Based on his month to [*3]month tenancy, Plaintiff was entitled to a thirty day notice of termination prior to any eviction. Additionally after service of a 30 day notice, the eviction should have been accomplished through a holdover proceeding in Housing Court, rather than by Dora unilaterally changing the locks.
The measure of damages recoverable for unlawful eviction is the difference between the actual rental value at the time of the eviction and the agreed upon rent for the unexpired term (North Main Street Bagel Corp. v Duncan 37 AD3d 785). At the time of the unlawful eviction, Plaintiff was a month to month tenant, at the rate of $550 per month, as such, the court will deem Plaintiff to have an additional month remaining on his lease term.
The rent stabilized lease (Ex 2) for the Subject Premises provided for a rent of $1123.00 per month. The actual value of the Subject Premises is in all likelihood higher then the rent stabilized rent, but the record contains no other evidence in this regard. Therefore the court finds that Plaintiff's actual damages are $573.00, the difference between his rent of $550 and the rent stabilized rent as per the lease.
RPAPL § 853, provides in pertinent part:
If a person is disseized, ejected, or put out of real property in a forcible or unlawful manner, or, after he has been put out, is held and kept out by force or by putting him in fear of personal violence or by unlawful means, he is entitled to recover treble damages in an action therefor against the wrong-doer.The purpose of allowing for treble damages is to discourage undue intimidation in the
ejection of persons from real property ( see eg Rudolph de Winter and Larry M. Loeb, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 49 ½, RPAPL 853). The statute was "intended to remedy such actions as 'removing the tenant's possessions while he or she is out, or by ... changing the door lock—actions beyond the narrow legal definition of force' (Hood v. Koziej, 140 AD3d 563, 565 [1st Dept 2016]."
The court further finds that treble damages are warranted in this case, and that Plaintiff is entitled to total damages in the amount of $1719.00. The clerk is directed to enter judgment against Dora Antiwiaa in said amount.
The action is dismissed as against Nan Awuah Sakyi, whom, the court finds essentially acted as Dora's agent for the transactions between the parties.
This constitutes the decision and order of this court.
Dated: October 25, 2018
Bronx, New York
_________________________
Hon. Sabrina B. Kraus
JCC
OCA e-submission: no Judge E-Mail
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.
