Opinion
39295/2018
03-22-2019
Edwin A. INFANTE LEOCADIO, Petitioner, v. GBR CRESTON AVENUE LLC, Friedman Management Corp. and, Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Respondents.
Petitioner is represented by: Pro Se Respondents GBR Creston Avenue LLC & Friedman Management Corp are represented by: Rosenblum & Bianco, LLP Joann Sullivan, Esq. Respondent DHPD is represented by: DHPD Symone Sylvester, Esq.
Petitioner is represented by: Pro Se
Respondents GBR Creston Avenue LLC & Friedman Management Corp are represented by: Rosenblum & Bianco, LLP Joann Sullivan, Esq.
Respondent DHPD is represented by: DHPD Symone Sylvester, Esq.
David J. Bryan, J.
After a home inspection, the Decision and Order of this Court is as follows:
The Court drove to the subject premises accompanied by his Court Attorney and three Court Officers. Upon arrival the party was greeted by the managing agent who is known to the Court. The subject premises is located at 2546 Creston Avenue, Apt. 3N, on the third floor of a "walk up" building. After the premises were inspected briefly by the Court Officers the Court and the Court Attorney entered the apartment. The apartment has a large vestibule on the left and long hallway just past the front door of the apartment. The third door to the left as you walk down that long hallway is the bathroom where the bathtub is immediately to the left. The bathtub runs along the left wall of the bathroom with its foot against the hallway wall and its head abutting a floor to ceiling wall beyond which the rest of the bathroom is contained.
As the issue was the stability of the bathtub and the structure that contains it, the Court began by entering the room and walking to the head of the tub. Kneeling, the Court looked at the seal where the tub meets the floor. Cracks were apparent running parallel to the length of the tub in a sealant that appeared to be comprised of cement or a cement like substance where the tub met the floor. Standing, the Court then moved onto view the tub and noticed that there were brownish stains at the bottom center of the tub that appeared to be rust and that there was standing water in the tub. The Court's observation is that the rest of the tub was dry including the shower curtain, and that caused a suspicion to arise that if the tub was properly pitched or positioned, there would not be standing water in the tub as was observed.
As the petitioner claimed that the tub was not stable, the Court placed his right foot into the tub at the head of the tub just past the faucet. The tub seemed stable at that point and no additional water gathered at that point. However, as the Court moved towards the foot of the tub significant bounce developed and progressively increased underfoot. Additionally, a squeaking sound became audible and increased in volume as the Court moved his foot closer to the foot of the tub. Finally, in the left rear corner of the tub an area of dirt or grime and water was present. As the Court moved to the rear of the tub water leaked in and out from that corner with the application of greater and lesser pressure from the Court's footfall.
It is the finding of the Court that the tub is not properly placed and affixed in the bathroom. Moreover, the pitch of the tub is such that it causes water to gather in the center of the tub instead of draining properly. The last row of tiles along the longest wall lining the tub between the foot and the head of the tub were cut on an angle creating a graded steepness and were not uniformly rectangular as to match the rest. Finally, the placement of the tub along with the other elements in the bathroom supporting it cause the production of water to gather and extrude upon pressure and release from an area of the tub that should be sealed where the tub meets the wall.
Upon review of the statements made by the parties and submitted to the court on January 18, 2019, violation No.12836255 and violation # 12836254 are uncontested. Therefore, in consideration of the observations made by this Court above and the additional violations that remain uncontested by the parties, the landlord is ordered to comply and correct the following violations: # 12803228, # 12836256, # 12836254, and # 12836255 by March 6, 2019. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.