Court Opinion

ID: 9885647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:09:25.257332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.531007
License: Public Domain

Milonas, J.,
dissents in a memorandum as follows: In my opinion, the order being appealed herein should be modified only to the extent of restraining and enjoining plaintiff from either inviting or permitting his nephew to enter onto the subject premises and otherwise affirmed. Indeed, plaintiff has already agreed not to have his schizophrenic relative visit his home. The majority, however, have concluded that his nephew’s bizarre and otherwise irrational behavior toward the staff, residents and guests at defendant’s property justifies the eviction of this eighty year old plaintiff notwithstanding that any unpleasant incidents caused by plaintiff’s disturbed relation have now become uncommon rather than persistent. The appropriate solution would be to enlarge the Supreme Court’s injunction so as to keep the nephew entirely out of the building instead of punishing plaintiff for the nuisance created by the former in the past. If his nephew then chooses to appear, he may be treated as an ordinary trespasser, as opposed to an invitee, and the proper authorities notified to remove and/or arrest him.
In fact, there is some indication in the record that defendant-landlord’s real objective is not so much to prevent a *37nuisance but to terminate the lease and evict for financial reasons this rent-stabilized tenant, who has a history of withholding rent payments to secure repairs and other services to his apartment. Thus, the psychological condition of plaintiffs unfortunate nephew seems largely to present a convenient pretext for defendant to endeavor to accomplish what it could not otherwise achieve — that is, to recover the apartment in question.