Court Opinion

ID: 9942833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:22.182929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:44.557867
License: Public Domain

Dahl v Prince Holdings 2012, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30486(U)
                   February 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157743/2014
               Judge: James E. d'Auguste
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
..    .,..,.,,,.,._                                                                                           INDEX NO. 157743/2014
     NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                                       SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                                 NEW YORK COUNTY

                      PRESENT:        Hon. James E. d' Auguste                              PART 55
                                                                                  Justice
                             ---------------------------------------X                       INDEX NO.         157743/2014
                       SHAWN DAHL and JAMES PETERSON,
                                                                                            MOTION DATE       07/31/2020
                                                          Plaintiffs,
                                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.         18
                                               - against -
                       PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012, LLC, STEVEN CROMAN,
                       HARRIET CROMAN a/k/a HARRIET KAHAN CROMAN,
                                                                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
                       HARRIET KAHAN, ANTHONY FALCONITE, OREN
                                                                                                    MOTION
                       GOLDSTEIN, and JANETH DONOVAN,

                                                          Defendants.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - ·----------------------X

                      The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 406, 407, 408, 409,
                      410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,419,420,421,422,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,430,
                      431,432,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444,446,447,448,449,450,451,452,
                      453,454,455,456,475,476,478
                      were read on this motion to/for                                   SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                              Defendant Prince Holdings 2012, LLC ("Prince Holdings"), owns and operates 309 East

                      8th Street in Manhattan, the building in which plaintiffs Shawn Dahl ("Dahl") and James

                      Peterson ("Peterson") live. In or around August 2014, plaintiffs commenced the instant action

                      alleging that since Prince Holdings acquired the building, it, along with the individually named

                      defendants, have engaged in a pattern of harassment, abuse, and neglect to drive plaintiffs from

                      their rent-stabilized apartments.

                             This case has a long history as the parties have engaged in voluminous motion practice,

                      and while plaintiffs initially alleged eleven causes of action within their amended complaint, the

                      decision and order rendered on Motion Sequence number three (MS003) disposed of the

                      following causes of action: the first cause of action for a declaratory judgment insofar as asserted

                      by Peterson was dismissed; the first cause of action for a declaratory judgment insofar as

                      asserted by Dahl was dismissed as against all defendants, except for Prince Holdings; the second
                       157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012, LLC                                  Page 1 of 22
                       Motion No. 018

[* 1]                                                                   1 of 22
I                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157743/2014
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

              cause of action for warranty of habitability, the third cause of action for constructive and actual

              eviction, and the fourth cause of action for actual eviction were dismissed as against all

              defendants, except for Prince Holdings; the fifth cause of action for trespass was dismissed as

              against all defendants except for Prince Holdings and Anthony Falconite ("Falconite"); the sixth

              cause of action for nuisance was dismissed as against Oren Goldstein ("Goldstein"); the eighth,

              ninth, and tenth causes of action were dismissed; and the eleventh cause of action for attorneys'

              fees was dismissed as against all defendants except for Prince Holdings (see NYSCEF doc. nos.

              101,355).

                         Defendants now move for summary judgment seeking dismissal on particular remaining

              causes of action within the amended complaint including the third cause of action for

              constructive and actual eviction as against Prince Holdings; the fourth cause of action for actual

              eviction as against Prince Holdings 1; the fifth cause of action for trespass as against Prince

              Holdings and Falconite; the sixth cause of action for nuisance as against Prince Holdings, Steven

              Croman ("S. Croman"), Harriet Croman ("H. Croman"), Falconite and Janeth Donovan

              ("Donovan"); and the seventh cause of action for harassment against all named defendants.

                                                                      DISCUSSION

                        On a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable

              to the non-moving party (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 (2012]). The

              movant must show prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing

              1
                While defendants' notice of motion does not specifically seek relief pertaining to the dismissal of the fourth cause
              of action for actual eviction, defendants' moving papers expressly articulate a relevant argument for the relief
              sought. Further, plaintiffs responded to this argument in opposition, the irregularity in the notice of motion did not
              result in any prejudice to plaintiffs, and the notice contains a general prayer for relief. (see Fifth & Fifty-Fifth
              Residence Club Assn., Inc. v Vistana Signature Experiences, Inc., 217 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2023]). Therefore, it is
              within the Court's discretion to "grant relief, under a general prayer contained in the notice of motion ... , other than
              that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts appearing on the papers on both sides" (see
              HCE Assoc. v 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 774, 774 [2d Dept 1991]).
                  157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012, LLC                                                Page 2 of 22
                  Motion No. 018

[* 2]                                                                2 of 22
I                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157743/2014
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

               sufficient admissible evidence demonstrating the absence of any material factual issues (see

               CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Failure to make such a

               showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of any opposition (see Vega,

               18 NY3d at 503). The opposing party overcomes the movant's showing only by introducing

               "evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions"

               (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]).

                      The Court, upon a summary judgment motion, may search the record and grant judgment

               to the non-moving party without necessity of notice or cross-motion (CPLR 3212(b); see also

               Abramovitz v Paragon Sporting Goods Co., 202 AD2d 206 [1st Dept 1994]).

               Third Cause of Action - Constructive/Actual Eviction

                      Plaintiffs' third cause of action for constructive and actual eviction alleges that

               defendants' illegal construction in the subject building created conditions within plaintiffs'

               apartments that not only caused plaintiffs to be constructively and/or actually evicted from

               portions of their demised premises, but also caused plaintiffs to incur hotel room costs as they

I              were forced from their homes due to such conditions.

                      Prince Holdings seeks dismissal of the third cause of action for constructive and actual

               eviction arguing that there is no proof in the record that the plaintiffs were made to abandon their

               apartments or any parts of them, even if plaintiffs were discomforted by the various

               inconveniences of which they complain. Therefore, Prince Holdings contends that plaintiffs

               were never constructively or actually evicted from their apartments due to construction.

                      To be an eviction, constructive or actual, there must be a wrongful act by the landlord

              that deprives the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment or actual possession of the demised premises

              (see Schwartz v Hotel Carlyle Owners Corp., 132 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2015]). Actual eviction

               157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
               Motion No. 018                                  '
                                                                                                     Page 3 of 22

[* 3]                                                      3 of   22
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            occurs when the landlord removes the tenant from physical possession of the leased premises,

            while constructive eviction involves a landlord's wrongful acts which substantially and

            materially deprive the tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, although there

            has been no physical exclusion of the tenant (see Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate

            Corp., 26 NY2d 77 [ 1970]). If the eviction is constructive, the tenant must show an

            abandonment of the premises and, therefore, cannot remain in possession of the demised

            premises (Id.). However, a constructive eviction may be partial, in which case the tenant must

            have abandoned only that portion of the affected premises (see Minjak Co. v Randolph, 140

            AD2d 245 [1st Dept 1988]).

                   Here, Prince Holdings has failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing a lack of

            dispute of material facts as to whether plaintiffs were made to abandon their apartments or any

            portion of them. As Peterson testified that he was forced to abandon a portion of his apartment,

            specifically, his son's room, for periods, as a result of the violations, leaks, and all the other

            conditions present in his apartment, and Dahl testified that she was forced to stay elsewhere for a

            few days after she returned to her apartment after being out of town for approximately a month-

            and-a-half, only to find her apartment uninhabitable and in a state of disrepair after a ceiling

            collapse and sewage leak, the Court finds that there are issues of fact to be determined at trial

            regarding exactly how and to what extent plaintiffs' beneficial enjoyment and/or actual

            possession of the demised premises may have been affected. Therefore, summary judgment to

            dismiss the third cause of action for constructive and actual eviction as against Prince Holdings

            is hereby denied.

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                      Page 4 of 22

                                                          4 of   22
[* 4]
                                                                                        '~         INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            Fourth Cause of Action-Actual Eviction (Damages/Injunction)

                    In the fourth cause of action for actual eviction, Dahl seeks monetary damages resulting

            from allegations that she was actually evicted from the basement foyer portion of her demised

            premises, when a Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD") Vacate Order was placed

            upon the premises, preventing her from accessing the space ancillary to her apartment for the

            duration of that vacate order. Dahl also alleges she is entitled to a mandatory injunction

            compelling Prince Holdings to construct an entrance in the public area of the basement foyer to

            access the boiler room without having to access that portion of the basement foyer Dahl has been

            granted usage of pursuant to her lease agreement.

                    Prince Holdings argues that this cause of action should be dismissed against Peterson as

            he failed to plead any facts supporting this cause of action within the amended complaint, nor is

            he seeking any relief regarding the same, and the record is devoid of any evidence in support of

            such a claim. Regarding the allegations made by Dahl that seek monetary damages (resulting

            from Dahl's lack of access to the basement foyer while an HPD vacate order was in place),

            Prince Holdings offers no argument in support of their position to dismiss that portion of the

            cause of action as to Dahl.

                   However, regarding that portion of the cause of action as to Dahl that seeks a mandatory

            injunction compelling Prince Holdings to construct an alternate entrance in the public area of the

            basement foyer, Prince Holdings argues that the amended complaint fails to sufficiently plead the

            elements for a permanent injunction, in that it fails to allege 1) that Prince Holdings violated any

            right of Dahl by not constructing a door, 2) that Dahl does not have a remedy at law, 3) that

            serious and irreparable injury will result, and 4) that the equities are balanced in Dahl's favor.

            Further, Prince Holdings argues that the lease cannot be interpreted to mandate the construction

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                     Page 5 of 22

                                                          5 of 22
[* 5]
                                                                                         """""l.,..,..,   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            of a new door to access the boiler room, and instead grants a prescriptive easement to Prince

            Holdings as the landlord, through that section of the basement foyer of Dahl's leasehold.

                    As an initial matter, the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted by Peterson is hereby

            dismissed as Prince Holdings has established their prima facie showing that they are entitled to a

            judgment as a matter of law. Here, Peterson has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in

            opposition as to whether he was actually evicted, as the amended complaint is silent as to any

            allegations of actual eviction, nor was any testimony or other evidence provided within the

            record to contradict defendant's position. Therefore, the fourth cause of action insofar as

            asserted by Peterson is hereby dismissed.

                    The Court first addresses that portion of the fourth cause of action in which Dahl seeks

            monetary damages for that period she alleges she was prevented access to a portion of her

            leasehold due to an HPD vacate order being placed upon the premises.

                   It is well settled that a residential lease is deemed a sale of shelter and services by the

            landlord who impliedly warrants that the premises are fit for human habitation, the condition of

            the premises is in accord with the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and the tenants are not

            subjected to any conditions that are endangering or detrimental to their life, health or safety (see

            Real Property Law sec. 235-b (RPL)); Park W Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 [1979]).

            The placement of an HPD vacate order on the premises is prima facie proof of a landlord's

            breach of the warranty of habitability, as violations of the New York City Housing Maintenance

            Code ("HMC") are prima facie proof that conditions exist (see Multiple Dwelling Law sec.

            328(3)(b) (MDL)); see also Fiondella v 345 W 70th Tenants Corp., 217 AD3d 495 [1st Dept

            2023]; Allen v 219 24th St. LLC, 67 Misc 3d 1212[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50513[U] [Civ Ct, NY

            County 2020]).

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                            Page 6 of 22

                                                         6   of 22
[* 6]
                                                  )_ -, . #lt½-i'Jft   .6                         INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                     It is undisputed that an HPD vacate order was placed upon the premises, and this vacate

            order prevented Dahl from accessing a portion of the basement foyer that she is entitled to

            pursuant to the terms of her lease. As such, her ability to use, occupy, or enjoy that portion of

            her leasehold was obstructed for the time that the vacate order was in effect. Prince Holdings has

            the responsibility to maintain the premises under the warranty of habitability (see RPL sec. 235-

            b). As the record indicates that the vacate order created a rent-impairing breach of the warranty

            of habitability brought about by Prince Holdings' failure to meet its contractual obligation to

            maintain that portion of the demised premises, the Court finds that Prince Holdings breached its

            duty, and therefore owes Dahl restitution in the form of rent abatement.

                     As discussed above, Prince Holdings failed to offer an argument in support of that

            portion of its motion that seeks summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action as to

            Dahl's request for monetary damages premised on the HPD vacate order. Accordingly, as Prince

            Holdings has failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, its

            request for summary judgment on this portion of the fourth cause of action is denied. However,

            for the reasons stated above, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Dahl as against

            Prince Holdings, only for that portion of the fourth cause of action that seeks damages for the

            period the HPD vacate order was in place. The amount of the abatement is to be determined at

            trial.

                     Next, Dahl seeks an injunction compelling Prince Holdings to construct an alternate

            entrance to the boiler room in the public basement area that would prevent the necessity of

            accessing the Dahl leasehold portion of the basement foyer space.

                     To state a cause of action for a permanent injunction, the complaint must allege the

            violation of a right presently occurring, or threatened and imminent, that the plaintiff has no

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                    Page 7 of 22

[* 7]                                                           7      of 22
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            adequate remedy at law, that serious and irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not

            granted, and that the equities are balanced in the plaintiffs favor (see Canal Rubber Supply Co.

            Inc. v 6 Greene Realty Owner, LLC, 202 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2022], citing Elow v

            Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674, 675 [2d Dept 2009]).

                    Dahl testified that she entered a lease addendum in 2006 with Steven Kates, who was the

            landlord at the time. The language of this lease addendum in the relevant part reads as follows:

            "Rental on Apt. A Includes exclusive use of Basement space underneath entirety of Apt. A

            excluding Boiler Room but Including Foyer room into rear space which has exit to lot at 311

            East 8 St. (currently a community garden)." Dahl testified that she understood this language to

            mean that she has exclusive use of this basement space except for that space in which the boiler

            is located (the boiler room). Dahl also stated in her testimony that the "area that the boiler is in is

            not possessed by me" and Dahl further acknowledged that going through her leased portion of

            the basement is the only way to access the boiler room.

                   A contract is unambiguous if on its face it is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning

            (see Almah LLC v AIG Empl. Servs., Inc., 157 AD3d 416 [1st Dept 2018]). Further, the intent of

            the parties must be found within the four comers of the contract, giving a practical interpretation

            of the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations (see Triax Capital Advisors,

            LLC v Rutter, 83 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2011] [internal citations omitted]). Written agreements

            that are clear, complete, and subject to only one reasonable interpretation must be enforced

            according to the plain meaning of the language chosen by the contracting parties. Therefore,

            courts cannot make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing (see

            MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd, 213 AD3d 28 [1st Dept 2022]).

            However, courts may as a matter of interpretation, carry out the intention of a contract by

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                      Page 8 of 22

[* 8]                                                     8 of   22
                      3SAAs .. ;~ A•? .;,&ff?JF •
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            transposing, rejecting, or supplying words to make the meaning of the contract clearer, in those

            limited instances to avoid an absurd result that would render a contract unenforceable in whole

            or in part (see Jade Realty LLC v Citigroup Commercial Mtge. Trust 2005-EMG, 20 NY3d 881

            [2012]).

                       While the Court recognizes the terms of the addendum may not be the most elegantly

            drafted, there is no dispute in the record that the parties agree the addendum provides a carve-out

            exception for the landlord to access the boiler room. There is also no dispute within the record

            that Dahl has exclusive use of the basement space under apartment A. However, the Court does

            not read the addendum to mean that this exclusive use is to be provided to Dahl at the landlord's

            detriment and total exclusion from the boiler. Rather, the Court interprets this exclusivity to

            mean that Dahl shall be the only tenant with access to this basement space under apartment A for

            the duration of her tenancy. As the addendum is silent as to the procedure for how the landlord is

            to gain access to the boiler, it can only be assumed that the parties intended that the landlord

            would have unfettered access to an essential building system. If the parties had intended a

            different arrangement, it follows that they would have contracted further terms that were more

            particularly tailored to those expectations 2•

                      As the issue of contract reformation is not before the Court at this time, it is between the

            parties to determine how they will afford each other the necessary access to their contracted

            space within the premises as there is currently no formal prescribed method within the

            addendum. However, while injunctive relief is not appropriate at this juncture, the Court expects

            2
              It is the position of the Court that its' interpretation of the tenn "exclusive" aligns with the 2012 DHCR decision
            relied upon by Dahl, as that decision simply determined that the initial contract terms reached between the parties
            shall control, and while no additional monies shall be due for Dahl's use of the "ancillary services" provided for in
            the addendum, there is also no detennination made that landlord be restricted access to the boiler by virtue of the
            contract or otherwise.

                157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
                Motion No. 018                                  '                                                 Page 9 of 22

[* 9]                                                             9   of 22
                                                                                            .,.. ,,,..,,...,,   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

l             that the parties shall refrain from hindering access to the space each is entitled to under their

              existing contract.

                     As the record establishes the amended complaint fails to adequately plead the necessary

              elements for an injunction requiring Prince Holdings to construct an alternate entrance to access

              the boiler room, the Court finds that Prince Holdings has established its prima facie showing that

              it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue. Dahl has failed to raise a triable issue

              of fact in opposition as the contract between the parties fails to state any such requirement.

              Therefore, summary judgment is granted in favor of Prince Holdings, and that portion of the

              fourth cause of action insofar as asserted by Dahl that seeks an injunction compelling Prince

              Holdings to construct an alternate entrance to the boiler room is hereby dismissed.

                     The Court therefore need not address defendants' other arguments regarding the matter of

              alternate access to the boiler room.

              Fifth Cause of Action - Trespass

                     Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action for trespass alleges defendants physically entered their

              apartments without consent, and that dust and debris trespassed into their apartments during

              construction when materials, as well as the ceiling from units above, collapsed into their

              respective apartments. Plaintiffs allege this trespass was orchestrated by the contractor at the

              behest of the landlord interfered with the use and enjoyment of their personal property and seeks
                        I
              monetary damages. Peterson further seeks damages for medical bills he alleges he incurred

              because of his and his son's treatment for asthma because of toxic dust that invaded his
                        I

              apartment during this construction.

                     Prince Holdings argues that the fifth cause of action should be dismissed as against it as

              there is no evidence in the record that shows it engaged in any affirmative or willful acts

               157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
               Motion No. 018                                  '                                                Page 10 of 22

[* 10]                                                     10 of 22
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            sufficient to constitute a trespass regarding the construction at the premises. Defendants further

            argue that the fifth cause of action insofar as asserted by Peterson should be dismissed against

            Falconite as all of Peterson's claims relate to construction at the building and how the debris and

            dust disrupted his apartment and caused health issues for himself and his son. Defendants assert

            that those allegations have nothing to do with Falconite. Defendants further argue that as

            Peterson has only sued on his behalf, he is precluded from recovering monetary damages on

            behalf of his son, who is not a named party in this action.

                   Defendants also argue that the fifth cause of action insofar as asserted by Dahl should be

            dismissed against Falconite as he had a right to enter the basement space ancillary to Dahl's

            apartment, as he was operating as an agent of the landlord with permission to enter, and that

            space was not under Dahl's exclusive control.

                   A trespass is an intentional entry onto the property of another without justification or

            permission (see Schwartz v Hotel Carlyle Owners Corp., 132 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2015]).

            Trespass is also the invasion of a person's right to the exclusive possession of his premises (see

            Berenger v 261 W LLC, 93 AD3d 175 [1st Dept 2012]). The trespass may occur by a defendant

            having caused the intrusion thereon by either a third person or an object (see Kanayama v Kesy,

            LLC, 219 AD3d 1222 [1st Dept 2023]), such as debris or water (see Duane Reade v Reva

            Holding Corp., 30 AD3d 229,237 [1st Dept 2006]). Trespass does not require an intent to

            produce the damaging consequences, merely intent to perform the act that produces the unlawful

            invasion (see Berenger v 261 W LLC, 93 AD3d 175, 181 [1st Dept 2012]). To hold a defendant

            liable for trespass, the intrusion must be the immediate or inevitable consequence of what that

            defendant willfully did or did so negligently it would amount to willfulness (see Phillips v Sun

            OilCo.,307NY328,331 [1954];Berengerv261 W LLC,93AD3d 175,181 [lstDept2012]).

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                   Page 11 of 22

                                                         11 of 22
[* 11]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                    The fifth cause of action insofar as asserted by Peterson is hereby dismissed as against

            Falconite. As there is no mention within the record or otherwise of any allegations about

            Falconite having participated in the construction or trespass on Peterson's property, defendants

            have established their prima facie showing that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

            Peterson has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, as his allegations and testimony

            focus on the recurring intrusion of construction debris, and not on whether Falconite participated

            in the trespass on his property or in the construction at the premises. Therefore, the fifth cause of

            action insofar as asserted by Peterson is hereby dismissed as against Falconite.

                   The Court also finds that Peterson is precluded from recovering monetary damages on

            behalf of his son, as his son is not a named party to this action.

                   The fifth cause of action insofar as asserted by Dahl is hereby dismissed as against

            Falconite. The record indicates that Falconite was acting on the landlord's authority and had the

            permission of the landlord to enter the basement space to access the boiler. As such, defendants

            have established their prima facie showing that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

            Dahl has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition as to whether Falconite trespassed

            onto her property. As discussed above, the basement space that Dahl has ancillary use of

            pursuant to a lease addendum is not at the exclusion of the landlord and has only one entrance.

            This single entrance is currently the only entrance available for both the landlord to access the

            boiler, and for Dahl to access the basement space she is entitled to. Here, Dahl testified that after

            a disagreement about access, in which Falconite requested access to the boiler, Dahl allowed

            Falconite to enter the space accompanied by Janeth Donovan, the property manager of the

            landlord, and then Falconite proceeded to the boiler. However, as an agent of the landlord,

            157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
            Motion No. 018                                  '                                     Page 12 of 22

[* 12]                                                   12 of 22
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            Falconite did not require Dahl's permission to seek access to the boiler. Therefore, the fifth

            cause of action insofar as asserted by Dahl is hereby dismissed as against Falconite.

                   Here, Prince Holdings does not dispute that dust and debris from construction invaded

            plaintiffs' apartments, rather they assert that it was not their fault because they are purportedly

            not responsible for the actions of the construction company, and therefore could not have

            committed such a trespass. They further argue that it was its managing agent 9300 Realty, Inc.

            that hired Allan Yu's construction company and neither of those entities are named defendants in

            this instant action. Prince Holdings posits that because the alleged trespass stems from incidents

            where construction debris entered plaintiffs' apartments, due to alleged improper construction

            methods, those allegations cannot be maintained against Prince Holdings because there is no

            evidence in the record that Prince Holdings committed any affirmative act that caused the

            unlawful invasion of unwanted construction debris or materials. These arguments are

            unavailing.

                   Plaintiffs allege they made repeated complaints about conditions in their apartments

            concerning collapsing ceilings and other issues that led to repeated intrusions of water,

            construction material, and debris that were allegedly reported to management. "[A] landlord is

            responsible for and presumed to be capable of maintaining his premises in a reasonably secure

            and physically safe condition" (Gibbs v Diamond, 256 AD2d 266, 266 [1st Dept 1998] [internal

            quotation marks and citation omitted]), and "landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal

            precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm" (id. [internal quotation marks and citation

            omitted]). Therefore, Prince Holdings cannot divorce itself from either its own management

            company tasked with hiring the construction company, nor the construction company tasked with

            157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012, LLC
            Motion No. 018                                                                        Page 13 of 22

                                                         13 of 22
[* 13]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157743/2014
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

              carrying out construction work at the premises and claim that because Prince Holdings did not

              participate in any affirmative acts of construction, that it did not participate in a trespass.

                      The intent element of trespass is satisfied where a defendant's alleged acts are such as

              "will to a substantial certainty result in the entry of foreign matter" into the plaintiffs property

l             (see Phillips v Sun Oil Co., 307 NY 328,331 [1954][intemal quotation marks and citation

              omitted]); Kanayama v Kesy, LLC, 219 AD3d 1222 [1st Dept 2023]), there remains an issue of

              fact to be determined at trial as to whether Prince Holdings caused water, construction material,

              and debris to enter plaintiffs' apartments, whether by their alleged inaction to address the

              recurring conditions or by their alleged affirmative action of instructing the construction

              company to inflict purposeful damage. As Prince Holdings has not met its prima facie burden of

              establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is hereby denied

              against Prince Holdings on the fifth cause of action for trespass.

              Sixth Cause of Action - Nuisance

                      Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action for nuisance alleges that defendants intentionally

              interfered with their right to use and enjoy their apartments by allowing toxic dust to permeate

              their apartments, noise from ongoing construction at the premises to keep them awake at night,

              as well as constant harassment regarding repeated unnecessary and non-emergency demands for

              access. Plaintiffs also allege that the ceiling collapses they experienced were orchestrated by the

              contractor, Allen Yu, at the direct behest of the landlord, Prince Holdings.

                     Prince Holdings, Steven and Harriet Croman, Falconite, and Donovan argue that they

              cannot be held liable for nuisance as they did not cause or create, intentionally or otherwise, the

              conditions complained of by plaintiffs, as those conditions were either pre-existing to Prince

              Holdings' ownership of the premises or created by the management company, 9300 Realty LLC

              157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
              Motion No. 018                                  '                                       Page 14 of 22

[* 14]                                                      14 of 22
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            and the contractor Allen Yu, both of which are not named in the instant action. Defendants

            further argue that they cannot be held liable for the alleged wrongful acts of third parties.

            Specifically, Prince Holdings argues that it cannot be held liable for the acts of its management

            company 9300 Realty, LLC, or the contractor, Allan Yu, as there is no evidence in the record to

            support that Prince Holdings had any control over its management company or the contractor, as

            both were independent contractors, neither of which was named in this action.

                    "[A] claim of private nuisance arises from an interest in the use and enjoyment of

            property. The elements of a common-law claim for a private nuisance are: (1) an interference

            substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person's

            property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another's conduct in acting or failure to act"

            (Berenger v 261 W LLC, 93 AD3d 175, 182 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and

            citations omitted]), and can be characterized by a "pattern of continuity or recurrence of

            objectionable conduct" (LiNQJ, LLC v 170 E. End Condominium, 221 AD3d 409,409 [1st Dept

            2023]). Claims of private nuisance may be based on allegations of dust, debris, noise, and

            verrnin(seeKoretzv363 E. 76thSt. Corp., 178AD3d445 [lstDept2019]).

                   A party may be subject to liability for private nuisance arising out of its negligent or

            reckless misconduct (see Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co. ofN. Y, 4 l NY2d 564

            [1977]), therefore, nuisance need not be intentional to be actionable. Nor does a defendant have

            to directly cause or create the nuisance complained of, as a defendant may be held liable for the

            acts of a third party (see Abrams v Board ofMgrs. of 25 Beekman Place Condominium, 2019 NY

            Slip Op 30587[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2019]). Therefore, defendants' argument that they

            cannot be held liable because they did not directly cause or create the nuisance is unavailing.

            157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
            Motion No. 018                                  '                                      Page 15 of 22

[* 15]                                                   15 of 22
,----·~
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                     Defendants' assertion that they cannot be held responsible for conditions plaintiffs

              complain of that predate defendants' ownership of the building are also misplaced, as landlords

              are responsible for maintaining their premises in a "reasonably secure and physically safe

              condition" (see Gibbs v Diamond, 256 AD2d 266,266 [1st Dept 1998][intemal quotation marks

              and citation omitted]), and under the warranty of habitability (see RPL sec. 235-b), as allegations

l             supporting a cause of action for violation of the warranty of habitability may also state a claim

              for private nuisance (see Berg v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 203 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2022]).

              Defendants are responsible for construction work that occurs in their building, as "the owner of a

              multiple dwelling shall keep the premises in good repair" (see NYC Administrative Code 27-

              2005[a]).

                     Therefore, defendants' argument that they are not responsible for the actions of their

              management company and contractor simply because they were retained as independent

              contractors is unavailing. The Court is not aware of any distinction for independent contractors

              or third parties within the HMC, nor have defendants provided any support for their position.

              Contrary to defendants' assertion, when a tenant has sufficiently alleged a recurrence of

              objectionable conduct, a landlord may be held liable for nuisance for the acts of their contractor

              when the contractor's failure to perform in a workmanlike manner causes damage to that tenant's

              property (see Duane Reade v Reva Holding Corp., 30 AD3d 229 [1st Dept 2006]).

                     Here, defendants have failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing a lack of

              dispute of material facts as to whether Prince Holdings, Steven and Harriet Croman, Falconite,

              and Donovan interfered with plaintiffs' right to use and enjoy their apartments. Defendants do

              not dispute the conditions complained of by plaintiffs but merely argue that they did not cause or

              create the conditions and therefore cannot be held responsible. As discussed above, the Court

               157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
               Motion No. 018                                  '                                   Page 16 of 22

[* 16]                                                     16 of 22
1-=.._,                                                                                             INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            not only finds these arguments unavailing, but also finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged

            that they had repeatedly complained to management about the conditions in their apartments to

            little or no avail. As such, summary judgment is hereby denied, as there remains an issue of fact

            to be determined at trial as to whether the defendants interfered with plaintiffs' right to use and

            enjoy their apartments, thereby creating a nuisance.

            Seventh Cause of Action - Harassment

                   Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action for harassment alleges that defendants engaged in a

            pattern of behavior in violation of New York City Administrative Code§ 27-2005(d) to induce

            plaintiffs to give up and waive their rights to their rent-stabilized apartments, which included

            repeated interruptions in essential services such as electric, water and heat, ignored and

            exacerbated deteriorating building conditions, catastrophic ceiling collapses and vermin

            infestations, threatened plaintiffs and utilized aggressive tactics to force buyouts.

                   Defendants argue that there is no support within the record for plaintiffs' claims of

            harassment, therefore these claims are without merit. Defendants further argue that the

            individual defendants as members of Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, or 9300 Realty, LLC, are

            personally exempt from the obligations of the LLC, and that an attempt to pierce the corporate

            veil is both inappropriate and insufficient. Specifically, defendants assert that the record does

            not support that the individual defendants, Steve and Harriet Croman, Falconite, Goldstein, and

            Donovan were operating as de facto owners of the landlord's corporate entity, Prince Holdings,

            LLC, and therefore they cannot be found liable for harassment. Additionally, defendants argue

            that as this case was filed before an amendment of the harassment statute that established a

            prescriptive manner in which buyout offers may be made to a tenant, the defendants cannot be

            held liable for harassment in the context of allegations of aggressive buyout offers.

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC                                   Page 17 of 22
             Motion No. 018                                  '

[* 17]                                                   17 of 22
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                    The New York City Administrative Code§ 27-2005[d] forbids the owner of a dwelling

            from harassing "any tenants or persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling" as per

            sec. 27-2004[a][48]. The enactment of this legislation "created a new cause of action ... to

            address a perceived effort by landlords to empty rent-regulated apartments by harassing tenants

            into giving up their occupancy rights" (Aguaiza v Vantage Props., LLC, 69 AD3d 422,423 [1st

            Dept 2010]. Harassment is defined as: "any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that

            causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to

            vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy" (see

            NYC Admin. Code 27-2004[a][48], and "includes a long list of possible acts and omissions, such

            as the use of force, interruptions of essential services, baseless court proceedings, and removing

            the door or the tenant's possessions" (Prometheus Realty Corp. v City of New York, 80 AD3d

            206,209 [1st Dept 2010]). Additionally, sec. 27-2115 was amended to add a private right of

            action based on a claim of harassment (see NYC Admin Code 27-2115[h]; Id.).

                    Individual defendants may be found personally liable for a harassment claim as

            employees or corporate officers if they are found to be "de facto owners of the corporate landlord

            entities or participated in tortious conduct" (Aguaiza v Vantage Props., LLC, 69 AD3d 422,424

            [1st Dept 2010] [internal citations omitted]). Pursuant to NYC Admin Code sec. 27-2004[a][45],

            the term owner is broadly defined as "the owner ... agent, or any other person, firm or

            corporation, directly or indirectly in control of a dwelling." Therefore, there is no need to pierce

            the corporate veil to hold individual defendants liable for harassment. As "personal liability may

            attach to a corporate officer who is construed to be an agent irrespective if the officer is or is not

            involved with the operation of the subject building" (Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP v Howard R.

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                          •       '                                     Page 18 of 22

                                                          18 of 22
[* 18]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            Poch, 40 Misc 3d 1213[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51176[U] *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]), a

            defendant needs only to fall within the enumerated categories of an 'owner'.

                    Here, defendants have failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing a lack of

            dispute of material facts as to whether the individual defendants should be considered 'de facto'

            owners under the broad definition of an owner within the harassment statute. Defendants

            previously argued that Falconite was granted permission by Prince Holdings and Goldstein to act

            as an agent of the landlord as the "eyes and ears" at the building to investigate certain matters,

            such as unlawful tenancies, repairs, and to examine the property for damage. Further, the record

            indicates that Goldstein was able to assign the responsibilities for the upkeep and daily

            operations of the building through his role as the Chief Operating Officer of the building's

            management company, and Donovan averred and testified that she was the managing agent of

            the building for landlord, Prince Holdings.

                    Additionally, the record indicates that S. Croman was listed as the Head Officer, and H.

            Croman as the Officer and Managing Agent on the building's registration summary report, also

            known as the Multiple Dwelling Registration ("MDR"). The MDR is prima facie evidence of

            the person or entity in control of a subject dwelling (see Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of

            the City of NY. v Chana Realty Corp. , 1993 NY Misc LEXIS 659 [Sup Ct, NY County June 7,

            1993, No. 92-426]). Defendants argue adamantly that both S. Croman and H. Croman cannot be

            held personally liable for harassment because they were not in exclusive and complete control of

            the management and operation of the building, and therefore, cannot be considered de facto

            owners under the harassment statute. However, this is not the standard, and contrary to

            defendants' assertions, "the usual exoneration to a corporate officer or director for the

            obligations and responsibilities of the corporation does not apply to a multiple dwelling in light

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
             Motion No. 018                                  '                                    Page 19 of 22

[* 19]                                                    1 9 o f 22
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157743/2014
    NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

l             of the provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law and Housing Maintenance Code" (Housing &

              Dev. Admin. of City ofN Y v Johan Realty Co., 93 Misc 2d 698, 701 [App Term, 1st Dept

l             1978]).

                        Moreover, defendants' submissions have inconsistencies. Defendants' prior argument

              against plaintiffs' cause of action for trespass asserted that Falconite was an agent of the

              landlord, and therefore, could not be held liable. However, in opposition to this cause of action,

              based upon the same information, defendants assert Falconite should not be considered an agent

              of the landlord as it pertains to the definition of an owner under the harassment statute. This is

              inconsistent. Similarly, defendants argue that while the record indicates H. Croman was an

              employee of 9300 Realty, LLC, and was also listed as the managing agent for the building, she

              held no responsibility in that capacity, and while S. Croman was listed as the Officer for the

              building, he was merely a member and principal of Prince Holdings. However, defendants offer

              no factual showing concerning the claimed lack of responsibility to the management or operation

              of the premises in support of these claims. Contrary to their position, H. Croman, Goldstein, and

              Donovan, as employees of 9300 Realty, LLC, admit that they exhibited direct control of the

              building, thereby satisfying the definition of an owner under the statute, when defendants' state

              in their moving papers that, "9300 Realty, LLC acts independently and wholly controls Prince

              Holdings 2012, LLC, and not the other way around."

                        Therefore, defendants have failed to establish that they are not directly or indirectly in

              control of the building. As such, summary judgment is denied, as there remains an issue of fact

              to be determined at trial as to whether the individual defendants are 'owners' under the broad

              definition contained within the harassment statute.

               157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
               Motion No. 018                                  '                                      Page 20 of 22

[* 20]                                                       20 of 22
                   illlllhf£   j   ?2!!/-'·-, --·· ~
            • -o
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                                    As summary judgment is denied, the Court does not address defendants' other arguments

              regarding buyout offers.

              Defendants' Counterclaims/ The Non-Payment Proceedings

                                    Defendants seek summary judgment on their counterclaims 3 representing unpaid rents

              allegedly owed by the plaintiffs in the amounts of$34,638.55 and $91,384.00. While defendants

              argue these amounts are undisputed, the Court previously determined that material issues of fact

             remain to be determined at trial regarding plaintiffs' warranty of habitability allegations.

             "Should plaintiffs prevail on their claims in the instant action, defendants would be required to

             refund or offset any overcharge" (see NYSCEF doc. no. 480). Therefore, summary judgment on

             defendants' counterclaims is hereby denied.

                                                                      CONCLUSION

                                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                                    ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the

             third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action of plaintiffs' amended complaint is granted

             in part and denied in part as follows:

                                    1) Summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action for constructive/actual

                                         eviction is denied against Prince Holdings;

                                    2) The fourth cause of action for actual eviction is dismissed insofar as asserted by

                                        Peterson;

            3
              In or around February 2015, Prince Holdings as the landlord, commenced non-payment actions in Housing Court
            against each plaintiff individually (as tenants) (Index Nos. LT55216-2015 and LT552 I 7-20 I 5 the "summary
            proceedings"). In this Court's Decision and Order, dated May 12, 2015 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 101), and reiterated in
            the November 7, 2019, Decision and Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 355), plaintiffs' cross-motion for consolidation was
            granted,_ consolidating the summary proceedings with the instant action, and upon consolidation, the summary
            proceedmgs were deemed to be treated as Prince Holdings counterclaims against plaintiffs in the instant action.

                   157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC
                   Motion No. 018                                  '                                            Page 21 of 22

[* 21]                                                                   21 of 22
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157743/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 507                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                    3) Summary judgment is granted in favor of Dahl as against Prince Holdings on the

                            fourth cause of action only for that portion that seeks monetary damages, the amount

                            of such abatement to be determined at trial;

                    4) Summary judgment is granted in favor of Prince Holdings dismissing only that

                            portion of the fourth cause of action, asserted by Dahl, that seeks an injunction

                            compelling defendants to construct an alternate entrance to the boiler room in the

                            basement foyer;

                    5) Summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action for trespass is granted in

                            favor of Falconite and denied as against Prince Holdings; any damages that may be

                            awarded shall be limited to the named plaintiffs;

                    6) Summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action for nuisance is denied against

                            Prince Holdings, Steven Croman, Harriet Croman, Falconite, and Donovan;

                    7) Summary judgment dismissing the seventh cause of action for harassment is denied;

                    8) Summary judgment is denied on Prince Holdings's crossclaims; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the first and eleventh causes of action remain as against Prince Holdings.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

                    2/14/2024
                      DATE                                                          James d'Auguste, J.S.C.

                                        ~
             CHECK ONE:                       CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                              GRANTED         □ DENIED      GRANTED IN PART         0    OTHER
             APPLICATION:                     SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             157743/2014 DAHL, SHAWN vs. PRINCE HOLDINGS 2012 LLC                                    Page 22 of 22
             Motion No. 018                                  '

                                                              22 of 22
[* 22]