[*1]
Elijah Jermaine, LLC v Boyd
2004 NY Slip Op 51322(U)
Decided on November 4, 2004
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 4, 2004
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. WILLIAM DAVIS
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570146/04

ELIJAH JERMAINE, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

TONIA BOYD, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- GUNNAR THORSI PORLIEFSSON, Respondent-Tenant.


Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered August 23, 2002 after a nonjury trial (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.) awarding possession to landlord and a money judgment for rent arrears in the sum of $10,200 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:

Final judgment entered August 23, 2002 (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.) modified by awarding tenant a 15% rent abatement on her claim for breach of the warranty of habitability for the period January 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002 and by reducing landlord's net recovery for rent to the sum of $9,307.50; as modified, final judgment affirmed, without costs. [*2]

The trial court correctly determined that landlord laid a proper evidentiary foundation for the admission of renovation-related invoices and cancelled checks under CPLR 4518(a) sufficient to establish the legal regulated rent based upon vacancy improvements (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §2522.4), warranting landlord's recovery of rent arrears and dismissal of tenant's counterclaim for a rent overcharge in this residential nonpayment proceeding. Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that tenant was entitled to a rent abatement for breach of the warranty of habitability based upon unremedied rodent infestation and other defective conditions (see Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 [1979], cert denied 444 US 992 [1979]). The evidence, including the December 26, 2001 inspection report, adequately demonstrated that landlord had notice of the apartment conditions complained of and took no corrective action.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: November 04, 2004