PROCEDURAL HISTORY This holdover proceeding based on a 7-day notice of termination alleging nuisance conduct was filed in December 2023. The petition alleged that respondent’s tenancy is subject to rent stabilization. In January 2024, counsel for respondent’s Article 81 guardian, New York Foundation for Senior Citizens and Guardian Services, Inc. (hereinafter “New York Foundation”) interposed an answer. Following additional adjournments, the parties, through counsel, executed a stipulation of settlement, which was so-ordered on June 27, 2024. The stipulation provided for a 24-month probationary period during which respondent, via his Article 81 guardian, agreed to refrain from engaging in any conduct similar to what was alleged in the notice of termination that substantially interfered with the ability of other residents to enjoy the peaceful use of their apartments and the common areas or substantially interfered with the ability of building staff to conduct their responsibilities and duties. Petitioner reserved the right to restore the case for all appropriate relief, including a judgment and warrant, upon a breach of the stipulation. On September 30, 2024, petitioner, through counsel, made a motion to restore for a judgment and warrant, upon an alleged breach of the stipulation of settlement. Respondent’s Article 81 guardian did not submit written opposition to the motion, but this court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether respondent breached the stipulation (see Decision/Order dated November 15, 2024 [NYSCEF Doc. 15]). The hearing was scheduled for January 7, 2025, and a hearing was conducted on that date. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, decision was reserved. HEARING Petitioner called two (2) witnesses at the hearing. Respondent’s Article 81 guardian did not call any witness and did not cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses. Petitioner’s first witness was Tyerell Sands. He testified that he is a desk attendant at the subject building and had been working there for 8-9 months. He is employed by CAMBA. He stated that he was familiar with D.C., who lives in Apartment 317 at the subject building. Mr. Sands testified about an incident during the evening on September 4, 2024. He testified that he saw Mr. C. with a bottle of vodka and that Mr. C. was drinking vodka. He observed Mr. C. speaking sluggishly. Mr. C. was in a wheelchair. Later, Mr. Sands observed Mr. C. through live video footage that he was monitoring at his desk. Mr. C. was laying in the laundry room and had crawled into a washing machine. He testified that no one other than Mr. C. was in the laundry room when this occurred. Mr. C. collected his belongings and went to his apartment after this incident. Mr. Sands was asked about an incident report (annexed to petitioner’s motion to restore [NYSCEF Doc. 14]), which he testified that he filled out on September 4, 2024. He testified that the police and fire department were called but did not respond. Mr. Sands concluded his testimony by remarking that he sees Mr. C. with a bottle of vodka every day. Nonetheless, he also testified that he had not seen Mr. C. for 3-4 days and that he was wearing a ski mask when he last saw him. He referenced Mr. C. saying “fresh” things to women in the past but did not provide details. Lisa Dunn was petitioner’s second witness. Ms. Dunn testified that she is also a front desk attendant employed at the subject building. She had been working there for 3 years. She testified that she was familiar with D.C. She stated that he was “always drinking” and was “disrespectful.” She also acknowledged that he was in a wheelchair. Ms. Dunn testified that there was an incident with Mr. C. on December 3, 2024, when his ACT Team came to assist him. She was at the front desk and saw the ACT Team go to Mr. C.’s apartment. The ACT Team reported to her that Mr. C. had threatened them with a hammer. She wrote an incident report about the incident, which was admitted into evidence. She stated that the police took respondent to the hospital in an ambulance after the incident. Ms. Dunn acknowledged that she did not observe Mr. C.’s threat; she learned about it after conversations with ACT Team members. Ms. Dunn testified that she did not feel safe with Mr. C., because of his intoxication. The hearing concluded after Ms. Dunn’s testimony ended. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION A probationary stipulation “remains subject to the supervision of the court.” (Ralu Corp. v. Parada, 46 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50195[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Upon due consideration of the evidence presented by petitioner at the hearing, the court does not find that petitioner met its burden of establishing a breach of the probationary stipulation that would warrant the forfeiture of respondent’s rentstabilized tenancy (Id.; Matter of Santiago-Monteverde, 24 NY3d 283, 290 [2014] ["Rent stabilization provides assistance to a specific segment of the population that could not afford to live in New York City without a rent regulatory scheme."]). Mr. Sands’ testimony primarily concerned one incident, where respondent acted somewhat erratically in the laundry room. However, he admitted that no other tenant was present during this incident. Thus, it cannot be held that the incident demonstrated substantial interference with any other resident’s peaceful use of their apartments and/or common areas. Moreover, while Mr. Sands wrote up a report about Mr. C.’s actions, the court does not find that the incident substantially interfered with his ability to conduct his responsibilities and duties. As for Ms. Dunn’s testimony, the specifics of the incident that she described came via hearsay from what member of respondent’s ACT Team told her. A judgment cannot be granted upon hearsay alone (see Zelnik v. Bidermann Industries, U.S.A., Inc., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1st Dept 1997]). The remainder of Ms. Dunn’s testimony amounted to generalities as to Mr. C.’s behavior, namely that he was “always drinking” and “disrespectful.” The lack of detail made it impossible for this court to assess whether the statements described behavior before or after the stipulation of settlement was executed and did not demonstrate any specific impact upon fellow residents or staff. Finally, while Ms. Dunn testified that she did not feel safe around Mr. C., the record lacked germane details describing any specific threats to her. Taken together, Ms. Dunn’s testimony was not sufficient to carry petitioner’s burden of proof. Accordingly, the court denies the ultimate relief requested by petitioner in its motion (i.e. the issuance of a judgment and warrant) after the evidentiary hearing. The June 27, 2024 stipulation of settlement remains in full effect and the parties reserve all rights and claims incorporated therein. ADDENDUM The court takes this opportunity to address an issue raised by the parties’ attorneys before the hearing. The attorneys advised the court that respondent’s Article 81 guardian could not compel respondent to enter substance abuse treatment except via respondent’s eviction. The court finds this to be a troublesome notion. As Judge Krzysztof Lach observed in G&M Realty I LLC v. Monell, 2022 NY Slip Op 34460[U], *2 [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2022], “[T]he medical field now views addiction as a complex disease whose origin includes a variety of factors including but not limited to individual differences in a person’s brain function; the role of genetics; and environmental and epidemiologic factors.” While the court does not have an adequate record to assess whether respondent is addicted to alcohol, a “rock bottom” approach to dealing with addiction is not in accord with the nuanced modern medical approach to addiction described by Judge Lach. As Article 81 guardian for respondent, the New York Foundation is not powerless to address respondent’s health needs and there is no requirement that an imminent threat of eviction is necessary for salutary steps to be taken. This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Dated: January 9, 2025
