98-100 Ave. C HDFC v Cambridge (2010 NY Slip Op 51281(U))

98-100 Ave. C HDFC v Cambridge

2010 NY Slip Op 51281(U) [28 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on July 20, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

98-100 Avenue C HDFC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Doris Cambridge, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, Michael Cambridge, Respondent-Undertenant-Appellant.

Respondents Doris and Michael Cambridge appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated October 15, 2009, after a hearing, which granted petitioner-landlord's motion for the issuance of a warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding.

Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated October 15, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Petitioner commenced this "objectionable conduct" holdover summary proceeding against respondents, the tenant of record and her adult son, alleging, among other things, that respondents caused unreasonable levels of noise in petitioner's building. Following a trial, Civil Court determined that respondent Michael Cambridge had caused "unreasonable noise at unreasonable times" and awarded petitioner a final judgment, but stayed the issuance of a warrant of eviction for a court-crafted probationary period. The court afforded respondents an opportunity to "cure" their objectionable conduct during the probationary stay, but permitted petitioner to move to restore the proceeding and for issuance of a warrant of eviction if respondents violated one or more conditions specified by the court, including a prohibition against noise disturbances. Petitioner subsequently moved to restore the proceeding and for issuance of a warrant of eviction on the ground that respondents violated the terms of the court-ordered stay by causing (or permitting to occur) a significant noise disturbance in the building during the probationary period. After a compliance hearing, Civil Court concluded that respondents violated the terms of the stay and issued a warrant of eviction.

The hearing evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's determination that respondents violated the terms of the stay. The testimony of two residents of the building, as well as the testimony of respondent Michael Cambridge, established that a guest of Mr. Cambridge caused a significant disturbance in the building that culminated in the guest's arrest. Moreover, as Civil Court correctly observed, the subject incident "cannot be seen as an [*2]unforeseeable mishap. Rather, it was entirely predictable, and consistent with respondents' past pattern of behavior."

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 20, 2010