Boulevard Together Master Tenant, LLC v Sandy

Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on April 7, 2026

Index No. 544550/2025

Aaron D. Maslow, J.

The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on these motions: 1-31. The Court also reviewed the defendant's notice of cross-motion, affidavits, and attached exhibitsFN1, filed in original hardcopy.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument, and due deliberation having been had, the within motions are determined as follows.

Background

Plaintiff Boulevard Together Master Tenant, LLC commenced this action seeking access to Defendant Sharon Sandy's apartment located at 884 Ashford Street, Apartment 5B, Brooklyn, New York, for the purpose of performing repairs and correcting alleged violations. Plaintiff asserts that access is necessary to address conditions in the apartment and to remedy building-related violations. By order to show cause, Plaintiff moved for access to the apartment for the purpose of making repairs.

Thereafter, Defendant filed a separate motion by order to show cause seeking affirmative injunctive relief against Plaintiff. In her Affidavit of Emergency and Affidavit in Support sworn to on February 2, 2026, Defendant seeks a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting [*2]Plaintiff, its employees, agents, and attorneys from engaging in what she characterizes as harassment, intimidation, retaliatory eviction efforts, drilling of locks, coercive conduct, and frivolous or unauthorized court filings in both Civil Court and Supreme Court Civil Term.

Defendant is a 65-year-old tenant with documented mental and physical disabilities and receives Supplemental Security Income. She sustained significant physical injuries when an adjacent wall was allegedly came down onto her while sleeping, including traumatic brain injury, cervical vertebrae fractures, spinal cord injury, neck and back injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant further alleges that she suffered ongoing emotional distress, severe anxiety, depression, panic attacks, heart palpitations, and psychiatric injury as a result of Plaintiff's alleged conduct.

Defendant contends that these alleged injuries were caused by Plaintiff's alleged conduct, including drilling or changing the locks to her apartment resulting in false imprisonment of her daughter, restricting her access to the premises, and commencing court proceedings against her. Further, Defendant maintains that these actions constitute an unlawful eviction, lockout, false imprisonment of her daughter during an alleged lock-drilling incident, retaliatory conduct following her filing of a separate personal injury lawsuit, and frivolous or abusive litigation. She asserts damages arising from alleged personal injuries, emotional and psychological harm, mental anguish, exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder, interference with housing stability, economic harm, and alleged deprivation of rights under her tenancy. Defendant also challenges Plaintiff's authority to commence proceedings, claiming lack of proper authorization or power of attorney from the property owner.

Discussion

A preliminary injunction may be granted where it appears that a defendant threatens or is about to do an act in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the action and tending to render the judgment ineffectual (see CPLR 6301). To obtain such relief, the movant must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in its favor (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839 [2005]; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 [1990]; W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). New York courts have consistently granted preliminary injunctions compelling access where a tenant refuses entry necessary to perform repairs and cure violations. (See Grinnell House Dev. Fund Corp. v McClain-James, 240 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 1997]; Osman v Kirschenbaum, 24 Misc 3d 143[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51762[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]). It is recognized that where access is necessary to perform legally required repairs and maintain building safety, injunctive relief is appropriate.

First, Plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits. The governing lease expressly requires Defendant to provide access for inspections and repairs upon reasonable notice. Paragraph 17 of the lease permits entry upon reasonable advance notification for the purpose of performing inspections, maintenance, and repairs. Paragraph 9 further obligates Defendant to temporarily transfer or vacate if necessary to effectuate repairs. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 13.) In addition, the Housing Maintenance Code provides, "No tenant shall refuse to permit the owner, or his or her agent or employee, to enter such tenant's dwelling unit . . . to make repairs or improvements required by this code or other law . . . if the right of entry is exercised at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner" (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2008).

The record shows the existence of multiple violations and numerous written requests for access. It further reflects prior findings in related proceedings that Defendant refused to allow [*3]inspections and disregarded written notices requesting access (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1, 18). Under these circumstances, Plaintiff demonstrated a contractual right to access pursuant to the lease's right-of-entry provisions, as well as a corresponding contractual obligation on Defendant's part to permit such entry, in addition to Plaintiff's statutory right of access.

Second, Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm. Irreparable injury exists where monetary damages are insufficient to compensate for the harm and where the injury is continuing in nature (see W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496 [1981]; Di Fabio v Omnipoint Communications, Inc., 66 AD3d 635 [2d Dept 2009]). The inability to cure violations subjects Plaintiff to continuing fines, penalties, and potential regulatory consequences. More significantly, the existence of outstanding housing violations implicates health and safety concerns that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages alone. The purpose of injunctive relief in this context is to permit compliance with legal obligations and to protect the integrity and safety of the premises, particularly where ongoing conditions affecting real property are involved.

Third, the balance of the equities favors Plaintiff. In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court must consider whether the harm to the movant if relief is denied outweighs the harm to the opposing party if relief is granted (see Angiolillo v Town of Greenburgh, 21 AD3d 1101 [2d Dept 2005]). Defendant will suffer no legally cognizable harm by permitting access in accordance with the lease and applicable law. Plaintiff, on the other hand, faces continued regulatory exposure and an inability to fulfill its statutory duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Where the requested relief merely enforces contractual and legal obligations and is necessary to maintain property in a safe condition, the equities favor the party seeking to perform such obligations (see Lexington & Fortieth Corp., 281 NY 526, 531 [1939]). The equities therefore weigh in favor of compelling access.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction directing Defendant to provide access for the purpose of performing repairs is GRANTED.

Turning to Defendant's motion seeking injunctive relief restraining Plaintiff from alleged harassment, retaliatory conduct, and related acts, Defendant has failed to satisfy the standard provided by CPLR 6301. Under CPLR 6301, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that the opposing party threatens or is about to engage in conduct violating the movant's rights with respect to the subject of the action and tending to render a judgment ineffectual.

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff's efforts to obtain access to perform repairs constitute such conduct. Defendant has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in this action, nor has she shown that the specific injunctive relief sought is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. Her submissions consist largely of conclusory allegations unsupported by competent proof of ongoing unlawful conduct by Plaintiff relating to the subject matter of this action. The injuries alleged are either speculative, based on past events, or compensable by monetary damages. Allegations of prior conduct, which have been addressed in other forums, do not establish that Plaintiff is presently engaging in conduct that would render a judgment in this action ineffectual. Moreover, to the extent Defendant seeks to restrain Plaintiff from prosecuting legal proceedings, such relief is extraordinary and not warranted on this record.

The record contains a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights finding that "there is no probable cause to believe that [Defendant] ha[s] engaged in or [is] [*4]engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of" (NYSCEF Doc No. 20 at 1). This was after Defendant complained of harassment and discrimination based on changing the lock and entering her apartment.

In a Civil Court action commenced by Defendant against Plaintiff, the court found that Defendant "acknowledged that she refused to allow respondent managing agent [to] enter her apartment to conduct inspections about which it notified her" (NYSCEF Doc No. 19 at 2). While the lock to Defendant's apartment had been changed, this was found not to constitute harassment; there was an error and the lock was reinstalled (see id. at 2-3).

The balance of the equities does not favor Defendant. In weighing the relative hardship to each party, Plaintiff's application seeks to enforce its contractual and statutory obligations to repair and maintain the premises, whereas Defendant's requested relief would impede Plaintiff's ability to comply with applicable housing laws and to exercise its rights under the lease, thereby prolonging existing violations and undermining the safe condition of the property.

Defendant's application for injunctive relief is therefore DENIED.

Conclusion

It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

Plaintiff Boulevard Together Master Tenant LLC's motion via order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction directing Defendant Sharon Sandy to provide access to Apartment 5B located at 884 Ashford Street, Brooklyn, New York, for the purpose of performing repairs and curing violations (Mot. Seq. 1) is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff, its agents, employees, and contractors access to the apartment Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., upon reasonable advance written notice, until such time as the necessary repairs are completed and the violations are resolved; and it is further

ORDERED that, if Plaintiff determines that the repairs cannot reasonably be completed while the apartment is occupied, Defendant shall temporarily relocate to an alternate unit designated by Plaintiff in accordance with Paragraph 9 of the lease for the duration of such repairs; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Sharon Sandy's motion via order to show cause seeking injunctive relief restraining Plaintiff from alleged harassment, retaliatory conduct, and related acts (Mot. Seq. 2) is DENIED.