Williams v. Llorente

• Decision Date: 13 August 1982
• Parties: Michael WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Tenant-Respondent, v. Pablo LLORENTE, Respondent-Landlord-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

Page 930

454 N.Y.S.2d 930

115 Misc.2d 171

Michael WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Tenant-Respondent, v. Pablo LLORENTE, Respondent-Landlord-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

First Department.

Aug. 13, 1982.

Abraham J. Yasgour and Arthur Siegel, New York City, for respondent-landlord-appellant.

Cassandra Bilotta, Brooklyn, for petitioner-tenant-respondent.

Before HUGHES, J. P., and TIERNEY and SULLIVAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment entered October 2, 1980, after trial is affirmed with $25 costs.

Tenant, alleging that he had been forcibly evicted, brought this summary proceeding for, inter alia, restoration to his apartment (RPAPL 721). The final judgment herein ordered that tenant be restored to the premises and, in addition, awarded tenant $10,000 punitive damages, $500 for mental distress, and $4,644.98 compensatory damages.

On appeal we are asked to consider whether the court was authorized to grant compensatory and punitive damages in a summary proceeding, where such recovery is not specifically provided for by statute (RPAPL § 747), other than in an action for forcible entry or detainer (RPAPL § 853). The distinction between this proceeding commenced by an order to show cause and a plenary action, it is argued by landlord, bars the recovery of damages awarded here.

Originally a summary proceeding was held to be a statutory remedy in derogation of the common law remedy by action, and therefore to be strictly construed (see Beach v. McGovern, 41 App.Div. 381, 58 N.Y.S. 493). The technical rules, however, have given way to the position now adopted by the courts that the proceedings "should not be so hypercritically restricted as to destroy the very remedy which they are designed to afford" (Reich v. Cochran, 201 N.Y. 450, 455, 94 N.E. 1080). This rule is particularly appropriate to proceedings under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, "since the trend is continuing towards making the summary proceeding a more simple, expeditious, and inexpensive means for the recovery of real property, when authorized by the statute, than was formerly the case" (Rasch, Landlord & Tenant, § 1001; see footnote 1, page 446).

The rule which has * * * evolved is that with respect to jurisdictional matters the proceeding should be conducted strictly in accordance with the statute, but, once jurisdiction has been obtained, the remedy should be liberally applied (id.) (Rasch, Landlord & Tenant, § 1001).

The Housing Court has been granted power to fashion an appropriate remedy in a summary proceeding whether or not such relief has been originally sought (NYCCA § 110).

It is abundantly clear from the record that the landlord's conduct was willful, wanton and malicious in destroying all of the tenant's belongings in "recapturing" possession of the apartment. Landlord invaded and looted the tenant's home. Not only was the ouster of the tenant accomplished illegally, but it was...