201 WEST 54TH STREET BUYER LLC., pet-lnd-app v. WALTER RODIN, res-tnt-res -and “JOHN DOE” AND/OR “JANE DOE,” res-und

15-037/8. 201 WEST 54TH STREET BUYER LLC., pet-lnd-app v. WALTER RODIN, res-tnt-res -and" JOHN DOE" AND/OR "JANE DOE," res-und — Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2014, modified to vacate so much thereof as afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

15-037/8. 201 WEST 54TH STREET BUYER LLC., pet-lnd-app v. WALTER RODIN, res-tnt-res -and” JOHN DOE” AND/OR “JANE DOE,” res-und — Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2014, modified to vacate so much thereof as afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

The trial evidence shows that tenant, without prior notice to or approval from landlord, gutted the bathroom of the demised rent stabilized apartment by removing fixtures, the toilet, sink and walls from floor to ceiling, and was in the process of “breaking the bathtub and back wall” with jackhammer, without obtaining any permits or showing that he used a licensed contractor. Such unauthorized actions exposed the landlord to potential violations, fines and lawsuits and caused a lasting and permanent injury to landlord’s reversionary interest, and, in our view, warranted the tenant’s eviction (see 259 W. 12th, LLC v. Grossberg, 28 Misc3d 132 [A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51314[U] [2010], affirmed 89 AD3d 585 [2011]; 230 E. 14th St. LLC v. Klufas, 11 Misc3d 132 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50368[U} [2006]). The unlawful alterations effected by tenant’s demolition of the existing bathroom-which were not shown to be necessary or a result of landlord’s failure to make repairswere not capable of meaningful cure and tenant was not entitled to “any stay for the purpose of correcting an uncorrectable breach” (259 W. 12th, LLC v. Grossberg, 89 AD3d 585 [2011]).

201 WEST 54TH STREET BUYER LLC., pet-lnd-app v. WALTER RODIN, res-tnt-res -and “JOHN DOE” AND/OR “JANE DOE,” res-und

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal