Hudson River Housing v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 11 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | LT-213-20 |
| Citation | 2020 NY Slip Op 51594 (U) |
| Parties | Hudson River Housing, Petitioner-Landlord, v. Lydia Griffin, Respondent-Tenant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Law Office of Vincent Catalano
Attorneys for the Petitioner
4 Liberty Street, Suite 2
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Chianti Lewis, Esq.
Justin L. Haines, Esq.
Legal Services of the Hudson Valley
Attorneys for the Respondent
331 Main Street, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
This holdover matter proceeded to trial on March 3, 2020, October 23, 2020, and concluded on November 20, 2020 (both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic), at which time the Petitioner-Landlord was represented by Vincent J. Catalano, Esq., and the Respondent-Tenant was represented by Chianti Lewis, Esq. and Justin Haines, Esq. of Hudson Valley Legal Services. Petitioner called the following witnesses in support of its claim that it is entitled to judgment and a warrant of eviction: Douglas Otto, Phillip Russo, Ebony Parker, and Kim Cipriano, Hudson River Housing's Housing Manager. In opposition, respondent called Mary Linge, Director of Hudson River Housing, in defense of the eviction proceeding. The Respondent-Tenant, Lydia Griffin, appeared on March 2, 2020, but failed to appear for the continued trial on October 23, 2020, and November 20, 2020. The issues for trial were narrowed to 1) whether respondent's behavior constituted a material violation (serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of her lease, Paragraph XII(2) which gave petitioner the authority to terminate her tenancy if, in the judgment of the landlord, said tenant represents a threat to the safety and/or reasonable comfort of said tenant, staff, and/or the other tenants; and 2) whether the property was federally subsidized with HOME funds such that the petition needed to plead the regulatory status and provide respondent a 30-day termination notice pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 92.253(c) or not. Having heard the testimony of the witnesses, reviewed the evidence, considered the parties' post trial memorandums of law, and having duly deliberated upon same, the Court now finds and determines the matter as follows:
BACKGROUND
Petitioner personally served respondent with a Notice of Lease Termination on January 20, 2020,1 on the grounds that respondent materially violated twenty-six (26) terms of her lease. See Trial Exhibit 1. On January 23, 2020, petitioner filed a holdover proceeding by Order to Show Cause seeking an immediate order granting petitioner judgment for possession of the subject premises, and granting petitioner a warrant of eviction to remove respondent from the subject premises. The Order to Show Cause was returnable January 29, 2020, at which time petitioner appeared to prosecute the action, and respondent failed to appear. A default judgment for possession only was entered against the respondent together with a warrant of eviction. Approximately two (2) weeks later, on February 13, 2020, respondent filed a pro se Order to Show Cause to stay the issuance or execution of the warrant, or alternatively, to vacate the judgment and warrant. The Order to Show Cause was returnable on February 20, 2020, at which time Legal Services of the Hudson Valley appeared for the first time on behalf of the respondent, and the parties consented to vacatur of the default judgment. Via written Decision and Order, dated February 25, 2020, the default judgment was vacated on consent, the matter was restored to the calendar, and the parties were ordered to appear ready for trial on March 4, 2020. Due to calendaring conflict, the trial was rescheduled for March 3, 2020. The day before the trial (3/2/2020), respondent's counsel sought an adjournment because respondent had a long standing medical appointment for March 3rd. Respondent's request was denied on the grounds that medical documentation was not provided. On the trial date, petitioner appeared ready to proceed with testimony of several witnesses, at which time respondent filed a motion for discovery and depositions of witnesses pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 408. Petitioner opposed the motion on the grounds that it was untimely, and argued that on the last court date (2/20/2020) respondent's counsel had been invited to inspect petitioner's records prior to the trial date, but counsel failed to avail himself and inspect the records. Petitioner contended that the property was not subject to HUD Regulations, and that even if it was funded by HUD, respondent materially violated the lease for which she is not entitled to additional notice prior to being removed. The Court granted the respondent's motion in part, via Decision and Order, dated March 6, 2020. Thereafter, respondent moved to be relieved as counsel and to have a guardian ad litem appointed. A hearing on this was held on September 2, 2020, and both respondent's applications (to be relieved and guardian ad litem appointed) were denied via Decision and Order, dated October 8, 2020. The trial that had commenced on March 3, 2020 (before COVID-19 pandemic), was continued on October 23, 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), and concluded on November 20, 2020. Both parties submitted post-trial memorandums in support of their positions.
Mr. Douglas Otto testified that he lives in the same building as the respondent at 36 Bement Avenue, Apartment No.4, and has lived there for approximately four (4) years. He has experienced multiple incidents involving the respondent that has caused him to feel afraid and threatened. He testified that there were so many incidents that he could not recall them all, but testified that respondent would incessantly ring his doorbell at all hours of the day and night, screaming obscenities at him (i.e: "mother fucker; white welfare trash; I'm gonna kill you; you'll all be homeless"). Respondent would regularly threaten him, bang on the ceiling and wall so hard his clock would fall off the wall, throw kitchen trash bags into the hallway, toss things off the porch at him, and repeatedly slam the doors. On one particular occasion, he testified that when he confronted her about her behavior, she swung to punch him, grabbed his arm, and tried to force herself into his apartment. He had to physically move her away from his door to close it. As a result of her actions, Mr. Otto suffered visible bruises to his arm.
Phillip M. Russo testified that he has lived at 36 Bement Avenue, Apt. 1 for sixty years. The respondent moved in next to him approximately three years ago. On November 14, 2019, Mr. Russo testified that he witnessed the respondent throwing furniture, chairs, buckets, bags of garbage, and a broom into their common backyard where the children play. He testified that he has witnessed respondent exhibit this type of behavior on a number of occasions and at least six times within the past year. He also testified that he witnessed the respondent throw a frying pan at Douglas Otto and saw her destroy his garden in the backyard with her broom.
Ebony Parker testified that she has lived at 36 Bement Avenue, Apt. 2 for approximately one year and that the respondent lives on the same floor. On December 5, 2019, as she was returning home to her apartment with her seven-year-old daughter, the respondent was standing outside and started loudly cursing at her saying, "Fuck you; you bitch". Ms. Parker testified that she deals with this type of behavior by the respondent all the time, and that respondent also rings her doorbell at all hours of the day and night for no reason, throws garbage in front of her door, has thrown garbage at her niece and curses in front of her seven-year-old daughter and her friends. Ms. Parker testified that she has called the police on three or four occasions and reported these incidents with the police.Mrs. Kim Cipriano, Hudson River Housing's Senior Housing Manager, testified that respondent left numerous messages on her office machine all hours of the day and evening to lodge complaints about the unit using foul language and calling her a "bitch". Mrs. Cipriano testified that respondent was sent a 10-day notice and a 6-day notice terminating her tenancy based upon material non-compliance with the lease.
Ms. Mary Linge, Director of Hudson River Housing, testified that Hudson River Housing's mission is to provide affordable housing to people who need it. Hudson River Housing applied for and was awarded federal funds in 2017 to rehabilitate the premises in question. However, the process was slow and no money was ever put into 36 Bement Avenue. Instead it went to the Church Street property first, in or around January 2020, and then COVID-19 hit. As such, since Hudson River Housing never completed the rehabilitation that they intended to on 36 Bement Avenue, the project does not fall under the federal regulations. Ms. Linge made reference to the agreement Hudson River Housing entered into on February 7, 2019, with the Housing Trust Fund Corporation for the NYS Home Program Small Rental Development Initiative. Trial Exhibit B. Respondent's counsel reserved the right to recall Ms. Linge if the document did not confirm her testimony. At the continued trial of this matter, Ms. Linge had pneumonia and could not be produced. As such, the petitioner stipulated that the SDRI/HOME Regulatory Agreement could be entered into evidence. Trial Exhibit B.
Due process requires that a Court hold a hearing permitting the tenant to have a trial on the issues prior to reaching judgment. The petitioner bears the burden of proof, and must prove a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. SCHERER, RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT IN NEW YORK, § 1:32, 2008-09 ed.Antillean Holding Co., Inc. v. Lindley, 76 Misc 2d 1044 (NY City Civ. Ct. 1973); Moss v. Hirshtritt, 60 Misc 2d 402 (NY City Civ. Ct. 1969). In turn, the respondent bears the burden of proof with respect to affirmative defenses. Id. Furthermore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial