Opinion
570052/07.
Decided on January 31, 2008.
Landlord appeals from 1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated July 31, 2006, which denied its motion for discovery in a holdover summary proceeding, 2) an order (same court and Judge), dated September 6, 2006, which denied, in part, its motion for summary judgment dismissing tenant's counterclaim, 3) an order (same court and Judge), dated October 3, 2006, which denied its motion for reargument of the September 6, 2006 order, 4) a final judgment, same court (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2006, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the holdover petition, and 5) an order (same court and Judge), dated December 22, 2006, which granted tenant's CPLR 4404 cross motion to the extent of ordering landlord to restore or repair the bathroom radiator and awarded tenant attorneys' fees.
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ.
Final judgment (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2006, affirmed, with $25 costs. Order (Pam B. Jackman Brown, J.), dated December 22, 2006, modified to vacate the award of attorneys' fees to tenant, and as modified, affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated July 31, 2006 and September 6, 2006, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid final judgment. Appeal from order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated October 3, 2006, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.
The trial court properly concluded that this holdover summary proceeding alleging a breach of lease, commenced by landlord in April 2006, was time barred under the applicable six-year statute of limitations ( see Roxborough Apt. Corp. v Viard, 2002 NY Slip Op 50297[U] [2002]). The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's finding that the alteration underlying landlord's breach of lease claim the installation of a living room radiator cover was completed in 1983, more than 20 years prior to the commencement of this proceeding. In the absence of any showing by landlord that the claimed breach of lease otherwise violated applicable law or interfered with the rights of other building occupants, tenant's conduct did not constitute a continuing wrong for statute of limitations purposes ( cf. 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus, 289 AD2d 145). We modify only to the extent of denying tenant's motion for legal fees since the parties' lease agreement contains no attorneys' fee provision.
We have considered landlord's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.