From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chelsea 18 Partners, LP v. Sheck Yee Mak

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
90 A.D.3d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Summary

stating that a court must find all allegations as true and afford them every favorable inference under a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Sand Canyon Corp. v. Homeward Residential, Inc.

Opinion

2011-11-3

CHELSEA 18 PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SHECK YEE MAK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Joseph Burden and Madga L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant. Benjamin R. Kaplan, New York, for respondents.


Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Joseph Burden and Madga L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant. Benjamin R. Kaplan, New York, for respondents.

DAVID B. SAXE, J.P., JAMES M. CATTERSON, ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, SHEILA ABDUS–SALAAM, NELSON S. ROMÁN, JJ.

CATTERSON, J.

In this landlord-tenant dispute, we find that the plaintiff-landlord has the right to bring an action for common-law nuisance in Supreme Court in the face of defendants-tenants' alleged four-year campaign of premeditated and malicious harassment designed to prevent the landlord from collecting lawful rents and effectively managing and operating its building. The landlord's complaint includes a litany of allegations amounting to 159 paragraphs in 43 pages, and the landlord seeks injunctive relief in the form of ejectment of the tenants as well as damages in the amount of $45,205.79 and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000.

We note at the outset that this action is clearly distinguishable from the type of action brought by a landlord in Housing Court where nuisance is a statutorily authorized basis for eviction, and where the action is generally brought for the protection and safety of a third party, namely the other tenants of a building.

All concur.

1. See e.g. Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26–408(a)(2); 9 NYCRR 2104.2 & 2204.2; Brodcom W. Dev. Co. v. Best, 23 Misc.3d 1140(A), 889 N.Y.S.2d 881 (Table) (Civ. Ct., N.Y. County 2009); 33–39 E. 60th St. LLC v. Hunter, 21 Misc.3d 129(A), 873 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Table) (App.Term, 1st Dept.2008); 17th Holding, LLC v. Rivera, 21 Misc.3d 55, 871 N.Y.S.2d 585 (App.Term, 1st Dept.2008); 405 E. 56th St., LLC v. Morano, 19 Misc.3d 62, 860 N.Y.S.2d 784 (App.Term, 1st Dept.2008).


Summaries of

Chelsea 18 Partners, LP v. Sheck Yee Mak

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
90 A.D.3d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

stating that a court must find all allegations as true and afford them every favorable inference under a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Sand Canyon Corp. v. Homeward Residential, Inc.
Case details for

Chelsea 18 Partners, LP v. Sheck Yee Mak

Case Details

Full title:CHELSEA 18 PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SHECK YEE MAK, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 3, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
933 N.Y.S.2d 204
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7740

Citing Cases

Chelsea 18 Partners LP v. Mak

To establish a cause of action for common-law nuisance "the plaintiff must sufficiently plead, and…

Katz 737 Corp. v. Cohen

Citing ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. v. MBIA Inc., 81 A.D.3d 237, 916 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept. 2011],mod.17 N.Y.3d 208,…