From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

222 E. 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan so

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 1, 2018
158 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

5571 Index 570277/15

02-01-2018

In re 222 EAST 12 REALTY, Petitioner–Respondent, v. YUK KWAN SO, Respondent–Appellant, "John Doe", etc., et al., Respondents.

Mobilization For Justice Inc., New York (Brian J. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. Kossoff, PLLC, New York (Alexander B. Fotopoulos of counsel), for respondent.


Mobilization For Justice Inc., New York (Brian J. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant.

Kossoff, PLLC, New York (Alexander B. Fotopoulos of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Richter, Tom, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department, entered January 12, 2017, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about December 31, 2014, granting petitioner's motion for a judgment of possession pursuant to a stipulation settling a summary holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court's conclusion that respondent was in breach of the parties' stipulation is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see 409–411 Sixth St., LLC v. Mogi, 22 N.Y.3d 875, 976 N.Y.S.2d 681, 999 N.E.2d 159 [2013] ). Pursuant to the stipulation, respondent agreed to refrain from "all conduct specified [in the termination notice]" (the "Alleged Nuisance Conditions"). Respondent's contention that, to establish a breach, petitioner was therefore required to prove that he had engaged in "all" the conduct that created the Alleged Nuisance Conditions is a distortion of the plain meaning of the stipulation and is illogical. The photographs presented by petitioner at the hearing amply demonstrate the existence of an Alleged Nuisance Condition.

Civil Court properly ruled that respondent was not entitled to an additional opportunity to cure. The stipulation said that if petitioner prevailed at the hearing the court would enter a final judgment of possession providing for a warrant of eviction "with no further stays." In effect, the stipulation itself was the cure, providing respondent with ample opportunity to remedy the nuisance conditions present.

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

222 E. 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan so

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 1, 2018
158 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

222 E. 12 Realty v. Yuk Kwan so

Case Details

Full title:In re 222 EAST 12 REALTY, Petitioner–Respondent, v. YUK KWAN SO…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2018

Citations

158 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
158 A.D.3d 414
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 610

Citing Cases

Walber 72nd St. Assocs. v. Sutcliffe

Furthermore, the stipulation gave tenant ample opportunity to cure, and thus remedy his nuisance behavior and…

Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Rodriguez

Furthermore, Respondent was already afforded a cure when the parties entered into the Stipulation. See Matter…