Judge Michael L. Weisberg

Read Full-Text Decision

In this holdover summary eviction proceeding, landlord argued it was entitled to terminate respondents’ tenancy under §§23(c)(3), (4) and (10) of the lease. The petition alleged tenant Anthony pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance after being arrested four blocks from the subject building. The court found if 23(c)(10) meant that engaging in any criminal activity anywhere were to be grounds for termination, there would be no need for 23(c)(3 )and (6), holding that 23(c)(10) was not its own cause of action for termination. Also, the petition did not allege landlord determined that any household member was illegally using a drug, nor contained facts supporting such claim. The court ruled the petition failed to state a cause of action under 23(c)(4) of the lease. Lastly, the question for the court was if the alleged drug related activity occurred “near the premises.” Anthony argued the drug related criminal activity was only grounds for termination if it occurred within the “curtilage” of the premises. The court disagreed, as it interpreted “near” the premises to mean a farther than in the immediate vicinity of it, ruling Anthony’s arrest was near the premises and the petition stated a cause of action under 23(c)(3). Dismissal was granted to 23(c)(4) and (10), but otherwise denied.