Riverwalk On the Hudson, Inc. v. Culliton

• Decision Date: 07 November 2018
• Docket Number: LT-394-18/CO
• Citation: 62 Misc.3d 351,87 N.Y.S.3d 852
• Parties: RIVERWALK ON THE HUDSON, INC., Petitioner-Landlord, v. Morgan Primo CULLITON and Robert Culliton, Respondent-Tenant.
• Court: New York City Court

62 Misc.3d 351
87 N.Y.S.3d 852

RIVERWALK ON THE HUDSON, INC., Petitioner-Landlord,
v.
Morgan Primo CULLITON and Robert Culliton, Respondent-Tenant.

LT-394-18/CO

City Court, New York, Cohoes.

Decided November 7, 2018

87 N.Y.S.3d 854

Tabner, Ryan, & Keniry, (Tracy L. Bullet, Esq. of counsel) Albany, NY for Petitioner-Landlord.

Morgan Primo Culliton, pro se.

Thomas Marcelle, J.

Riverwalk on the Hudson, Inc. ("Riverwalk") filed a non-payment proceeding under RPAPL 711(2) to evict Robert and Morgan Culliton. The Petition alleged that the Cullitons owed $3,300 in past due rent. On the return date, when the court officer called the case, Riverwalk answered; Robert Culliton ("Robert") did not; and Jacquelyn Henderson ("Henderson"), Morgan Culliton's mother, asked the court if she could participate in the case on behalf of her daughter. The court issued a default judgment against Robert before acting on Henderson's request.¹

With respect to Morgan Culliton ("Morgan"), the court explained to Henderson that she could not answer the Petition or

87 N.Y.S.3d 855

otherwise represent her daughter. However, since the court was convinced that Morgan was not ignoring her obligation to appear, it would not enter a default judgment against her. Instead, Henderson was placed under oath to explain why Morgan had failed to come to court.

Henderson testified that Robert had become abusive towards Morgan and that Morgan had vacated the apartment and sought shelter with her. Morgan, according to Henderson, was terrified to come to court and be in the presence of her husband. Finally, Henderson told the court that Morgan had no interest in returning to the apartment that her husband was occupying.

The court credited Henderson's testimony and found that Morgan had a legitimate excuse for failing to appear and answer the Petition. Since Morgan lacked any interest in returning to the apartment, the court entered a judgment of possession in favor of Riverwalk. Nevertheless, Riverwalk still wanted a money judgment against Morgan for the rent arrears. Because Morgan had possible defenses against such a judgment, the court ordered a trial on the issue.²

At trial, the evidence established that in late 2016, Morgan Culliton (then Morgan Primo) had rented a small apartment from Riverwalk. By October 2017, she had married Robert Culliton and the couple moved into a bigger apartment because they were expecting a child in December. Both Robert and Morgan Culliton signed the lease agreement which set rent at $1,100 a month plus utilities.

In December 2017, Morgan gave birth to a baby girl—after that things changed dramatically for the worse. Robert became controlling, abnormally jealous, disrespectful and short tempered. For example, Robert would confiscate Morgan's car keys so that she could not go anywhere. Robert also constantly accused Morgan of having an affair. As a result, he would take Morgan's phone away from her so that she could not contact anyone when he was gone. Further, Robert had the maintenance staff at Riverwalk monitor Morgan and report to him if anyone came to their apartment. The control extended to even simple hygiene; Morgan was only allowed to shower when Robert granted her permission. Moreover, he would humiliate Morgan by making cruel remarks about her appearance. Morgan told the court that this type of abuse occurred regularly—three to four times a week between January and May.

Robert's obsessive behavior crossed an indelible line when he threatened to kill Morgan (who was now pregnant again), her child and her unborn child. Morgan became so fearful that she fled the apartment. She, along with her baby girl, moved in with her mother for her safety and the safety of the child.

On May 25, 2018, Morgan filed a petition under Article 8 of the Family Court Act seeking a temporary order of protection (Albany County Family Ct, Maney, J., index No. 2500-18). Family Court granted Morgan a full stay away order of protection that expired on June 8, 2018. On June 8, 2018, Family Court extended the duration of the order of protection to June 8, 2019 with certain modifications with respect to communications concerning their daughter (id.).

In early June, Morgan called Mary Jane Madden ("Madden"), Riverwalk's manager,

87 N.Y.S.3d 856

to explain that she had vacated the apartment because of domestic violence issues. Madden requested documents to authenticate Morgan's allegations. On June 21, Morgan sent Madden copies of the orders of protection along with various police reports.³

Madden acknowledged the receipt of the call and the documents. However, Madden was unsure if Morgan's testimony that she had vacated the apartment was completely accurate. Madden was present when the City Marshall evicted Robert from the apartment on August 10, 2018. She noticed women's clothes in the apartment, beauty accessories and a crib. The inference being that since Morgan's possessions were in the apartment, Morgan accessed and used the apartment up to and including the date of the eviction in August.

Morgan conceded that her possessions remained in the apartment. However, she had made a quick decision to leave, took what she could and left the rest behind. She said that she had never returned to the apartment and that while her daughter had been taken to the apartment to visit Robert, another person, and not her, brought the child for visitation. The court credits Morgan's testimony that she vacated the apartment at the end of May and never returned.

Finally, the evidence established neither Robert nor Morgan paid rent for June, July or August. The arrears amount to $3,300. Additionally, the Cullitons failed to pay the utility bill for June and July which amounted to $198. Thus the total owed under the lease agreement was $3,498.

At the close of the proof, Riverwalk made a simple but cogent argument. It noted that paragraph 7 of the lease agreement makes Robert and Morgan jointly and severally liable for the rent. That is, Morgan made a promise to be individually responsible for the entire rent obligation. Thus, under the lease agreement, Riverwalk can collect the entire $3,300 back rent from Morgan. Consequently, Morgan must pay Riverwalk unless either a statutory rule or common law principle trumps the lease's joint and several liability clause. The court will examine each in turn.

Beginning with statutory defenses, RPL 227-c provides a method for victims of domestic violence to terminate a lease. RPL 227-c (1), in pertinent part, provides: "[A] tenant for whose benefit any order of protection has been issued shall be permitted to terminate [her] lease and surrender possession of the leasehold premise and be released from any liability to pay to the lessor rent for the time subsequent to the date of termination of such lease in accordance with subdivision two." RPL 227-c (2) sets forth...