Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Scott E. Mollen

Landlord-Tenant—Nuisance—Tenant Smoked Inside Apartment—No House Rule Or Lease Provision Prohibited Such Conduct—Arguments With Other Tenants Were Isolated Incidents—Subjective Fear Is Not Actionable—Traffic Created By Caregivers to Disabled Child Did Not Constitute a Nuisance

This decision by the Appellate Term (court), involved a holdover proceeding “to recover possession of a rent-controlled apartment on the ground that tenant created a nuisance.” The tenant asserted that the alleged misconduct could not constitute a nuisance and other allegations were “vague and conclusory” and “were insufficient” to constitute a nuisance claim. A jury had returned a verdict in the landlord’s favor. The trial court granted the tenant’s motion to set aside the verdict, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) and entered a judgment dismissing the petition. The court affirmed.

The New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations state that a tenant commits or permits a nuisance when “his conduct is such as to interfere substantially with the comfort and safety of the landlord or of other tenants”…. To constitute a nuisance, a tenant must “interfere with a person’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land”…. “Not every annoyance will constitute a nuisance”…. Rather, “[n]uisance imports a continuous invasion of rights—a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct’”….

In order to set aside a jury verdict on the grounds that it is not supported by sufficient evidence, a court must determine that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial.” The court found that the trial court had afforded the landlord “every inference that may be properly drawn from the evidence presented…, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to landlord, properly granted the branch of tenant’s motion, . . ., seeking to set aside the jury verdict …and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the petition.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Dig Deeper

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"At my firm, and with clients, I teach Marginal Gains as a helpful way of detecting process flaws and correcting them. Greatly summarized, this means unpacking the process, examining each aspect of it, evaluating these findings, and then making corrections."

Learn More


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.