Court Opinion

ID: 9942827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:08.991594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:45.326560
License: Public Domain

Board of Mgrs. of the 48-54 W. 138th St.
               Condominium v Burdock
               2024 NY Slip Op 30502(U)
                    February 15, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157791/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 157791/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          157791/2022
             BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 48-54 WEST 138TH
             STREET CONDOMINIUM,                                                                  MOTION DATE         02/15/2024

                                                         Plaintiff,                               MOTION SEQ. NO.         004

                                                 -v-
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             FLORA BURDOCK, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE,
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 101, 102, 103, 104,
            105, 106, 107
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ATTORNEY - FEES                    .

                      Plaintiff’s motion for legal fees and other relief is decided as described below (defendant

            Burdock did not oppose).

                      In this now-disposed matter, plaintiff alleged that defendant created a hoarding condition

            in her apartment and sought permission to abate this condition. After giving defendant many

            opportunities to abate the condition herself, the Court finally ordered that defendant had to grant

            plaintiff access to her apartment so that plaintiff could clean it. Plaintiff contends it got access in

            August 2023, cleaned out the apartment and put some of defendant’s belongings in storage.

                      In this motion, plaintiff moves to recover various fees incurred in this litigation, including

            legal fees and the costs to clean up the apartment. As an initial matter, the Court grants the

            branch of the motion that seeks to recover the costs incurred to clean out, sanitize and fumigate

             157791/2022 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 48-54 WEST 138TH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs.                             Page 1 of 4
             BURDOCK, FLORA ET AL
             Motion No. 004

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157791/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            the apartment. Plaintiff explained it spent $7,328.95 on these efforts (which even included

            moving defendant’s personal belongings to a storage warehouse and paying the first month’s rent

            at this facility).

                    The Court also grants plaintiff’s request for reasonable legal fees in the amount of

            $42,502.87 as plaintiff cited the relevant portion of the by-laws permitting recovery of legal fees

            here and the fees are inherently reasonable. This case involved numerous appearances and

            multiple motions. The case was only brought due to defendant’s hoarding and then was dragged

            out. Multiple motions and court appearances (all or which take time) were required due to

            defendant’s failure to clean it up herself despite many promises to do so, defendant’s failure to

            keep appointments to allow access and other issues and delays caused by defendant. Moreover,

            the rates charged by counsel for plaintiff are inherently reasonable (not a single attorney charged

            an hourly rate more than $475 in an era when many law firms are routinely charging well more

            than a $1,000 an hour [see Dan Roe, Top Big Law Partners Are Earning More Than $2,400 Per

            Hour, as Rates Continue to Climb, New York Law Journal, January 10, 2024]).

                    However, the Court denies the remaining relief requested by plaintiff. Plaintiff demands

            injunctive relief that defendant not create a nuisance and that defendant be enjoined from

            violating various by-laws and house rules. The Court declines to issue injunctive relief that

            requires defendant to simply follow applicable laws and rules by not creating a hazardous

            condition. It makes little sense to issue a Court order directing defendant to comply with certain

            obligations. After all, that is why plaintiff brought this case in the first place—because defendant

             157791/2022 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 48-54 WEST 138TH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs.         Page 2 of 4
             BURDOCK, FLORA ET AL
             Motion No. 004

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157791/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            created a hoarding condition and refused to clean it up. The lease, house rules, etc. already

            require the defendant to act in a certain way.

                    The Court also denies plaintiff’s request that defendant give access to her apartment to

            upon reasonable notice. The affidavit from Mr. Lago (an employee of plaintiff’s managing

            agent) contains no allegation that there is a current hoarding condition at the apartment. Instead,

            Mr. Lago explains that the apartment was cleaned up starting on August 22, 2023 (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 102, ¶ 4). Although Mr. Lago claims that defendant stated she intended to bring back

            some items that plaintiff put in storage on her behalf, that does not justify creating an indefinite

            requirement that defendant give access to her apartment. If the lease, house rules or other

            documents governing the parties’ relationship allow access, then, if defendant declines access,

            plaintiff may seek to enforce its rights under the governing documents.

                    Certainly, if plaintiff had specific knowledge (such as an affidavit from a doorman or

            super) that defendant had brought back these items and reasonably suspected that there was an

            ongoing hoarding condition, access may be appropriate. But a suspicion (even an

            understandable one given the history of this case) that defendant might create a hoarding

            condition in the future is not a basis to create a right, in perpetuity, for plaintiff to get access to

            defendant’s apartment on a whim. The fact is that, on this record, the hoarding condition has

            been cured and nothing submitted shows that status quo has changed. Defendant was

            presumably given a fresh start last August. If she allows her apartment to rise to the level of

            another hoarding condition, the plaintiff may bring another case. The Court is hopeful that will

            not be necessary.

             157791/2022 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 48-54 WEST 138TH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs.              Page 3 of 4
             BURDOCK, FLORA ET AL
             Motion No. 004

                                                             3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157791/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent that the Clerk is directed to

            enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Flora Burdock in the amount of

            $49,789.32 plus statutory interest from January 26, 2024 (the date of the motion) and denied with

            respect to the remaining relief requested.

                    2/15/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:              X   CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                         GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                   □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

             157791/2022 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 48-54 WEST 138TH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs.           Page 4 of 4
             BURDOCK, FLORA ET AL
             Motion No. 004

                                                          4 of 4
[* 4]