MAGAL PROPERTIES LLC, pet-app, v. PETER GRITSYK, res-tent-und

15-406. MAGAL PROPERTIES LLC, pet-app, v. PETER GRITSYK, res-tent-und — Order (Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.), dated September 11, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by Civil Court, that this holdover summary proceeding was time barred, since the alterations underlying landlord’s claim were completed in 1996, more than 16 years prior to the commencement of this proceeding in November 2013 (see Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver, 124 AD3d 459 [2015]; Barklee 94 LLC v. O’Keefe, 18 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50178[U][2008]; see also Westminster Props. v. Kass, 163 Misc 2d 773 [1995]). We also reject landlord’s attempt to cast this proceeding in “nuisance” — defined as “a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct” (Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117, 124 [2003], quoting Frank v. Park Summit Realty Corp., 175 AD2d 33, 34 [1991], modified on other grounds 79 NY2d 789 [1991]) — to avoid the consequences of predecessor landlord’s express written consent to alterations performed by tenant nearly two decades ago. Landlord is bound by the predecessor landlord’s express written consent to the alterations (see 52 Riverside Realty Co. v. Ebenhart, 119 AD2d 452 [1986]), which served to preclude its claim (see Haberman v. Hawkins, 170 AD2d 377, 378 [1991]; 106 & 108 Charles, LLC v. Hohn, 96 AD3d 511 [2012]; El-Kam Realty Co. v. Epstein, 148 Misc 2d 835 [1990]).