Opinion
570300/09.
Decided July 27, 2010.
Landlord appeals from 1) that portion of a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered February 20, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which, in awarding possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding, afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure pursuant to RPAPL § 753(4), and 2) an order, same court and Judge, dated May 21, 2007, which conditionally granted tenant's motion to extend the stay of execution of the warrant of eviction. Tenant, as limited by her brief, cross-appeals from so much of the aforesaid final judgment as awarded possession to landlord.
Final judgment (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered February 20, 2007, modified to vacate so much thereof as afforded tenant a postjudgment opportunity to cure pursuant to RPAPL § 753(4); as modified, final judgment affirmed, without costs. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 60 days from service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry. Appeal from order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated May 21, 2007, dismissed, without costs, as academic.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
The undisputed trial evidence shows that tenant, without prior notice to or approval from the landlord, gutted the bathroom of the demised rent stabilized apartment by removing and replacing all walls, flooring, lighting, and fixtures without hiring a licensed contractor or obtaining requisite agency work permits. The tenant's unauthorized actions, as the trial court aptly put it, "exposed the landlord to [potential] violations, fines, and lawsuits" and "caused a lasting [and] permanent injury" to the landlord's reversionary interest, and, in our view, warranted the tenant's eviction ( see Freehold Inv. v Richstone, 34 NY2d 612; cf. Rumiche Corp. v Eisenreich, 40 NY2d 174). The unlawful alterations effected by the tenant's demolition of the existing bathroom — alterations which were not shown to be necessary to make the apartment premises usable, but which merely reflect an "attitude of personal preference and vagarious choice in arbitrary interior reconstruction and redecoration" ( Freehold Inv. v Richstone, 72 Misc 2d at 625) — were not capable of any meaningful cure ( see 230 E. 14th St. LLC v Klufas , 11 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50368[U]; cf. Harar Realty Corp. v Michilen Hill, 86 AD2d 182).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.