| Would Court Grant Landlord Preliminary Injunction Against Tenant? |
Gemini Realty LLC moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining David Miller from denying Gemini and its agents access to his apartment.
Gemini alleged that it owned the building located at 47 Jane Street and that Miller was a licensee residing in the apartment. By written request for access dated May 23, 2023, which was sent to Miller by regular first-class mail and certified mail return receipt requested, Gemini requested that Miller give access to the apartment on June 7and 8 to replace the bathtub with a shower and to prevent water leaks and associated damage to other parts of the building. Miller neither responded to the request nor provided access to the apartment to replace the bathtub.
Gemini began this action against Miller for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Miller answered the complaint; alleged that Gemini failed to state a claim upon which a relief can be granted; and counter-claimed that Gemini’s tortious conduct had harassed him.
Gemini moved for a preliminary injunction barring Miller from denying access to the apartment during reasonable hours to replace the bathtub and carry out repairs needed to correct an open Department of Buildings (DOB) violation.
A party moving for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities in their favor.
With respect to likelihood of success, Gemini claimed a clear right to access Miller’s apartment for necessary repairs mandated by the Building Code, as provided for by New York City Administrative Code § 27-2008.
Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 provides that every multiple dwelling, including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof and the lot upon which it is situated, shall be kept in good repair. The owner shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section; but the tenant is also liable if a violation is caused by the tenant’s own willful act, assistance, or negligence or that of any member of the tenant’s family, household, or guest.
Under New York City Administrative Code § 27-2008 (part of the City’s Housing Maintenance Code), tenants must cooperate with building owners with respect to apartment repairs. Among other things, a tenant must allow the owner’s representative to enter an apartment to make repairs.
Here, Miller’s refusal of Gemini’s request for access, despite a well-documented written request specifying reasonable dates, ran afoul of his legal obligation. Further, Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 obligated Gemini to maintain the building in a reasonably safe condition. Both the replacement of the bathtub with a shower and correcting the conditions underlying the DOB violation were necessary to fulfill this obligation.
The Court held that Gemini was entitled, as it contended, to access Miller’s apartment to conduct necessary repairs and correct the open violation.
With respect to irreparable harm, Gemini presented the following evidence: (i) pictures suggesting that leakage had inflicted substantial and pervasive damage throughout the building; (ii) a tenant’s affidavit demonstrating that water leaks from Miller’s apartment had caused extensive damage to the walls, floors, ceiling and closets in the premises, as well as to personal property; (iii) the building superintendent’s affidavit indicating that he personally observed Miller sleeping in the bathtub with the water still running and overflowing onto the floor on multiple occasions when leaks were occurring; (iv) DOB’s violation letter, indicating that Miller’s apartment was in state of disrepair with conditions including cracks on the bath and living room ceilings and sloping wood flooring; and (v) repair invoices and check reports suggesting the cost of repairing the damages caused throughout the building. Gemini also presented pictures indicating that additional leaks emanated from Miller’s bathtub since the filling of the motion, which led to the presence of mold.
Gemini established that absent the requested injunction, it would suffer irreparable harm.
On the equities, according to the access request, Gemini gave Miller notice at least one week in advance and requested access to his apartment from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on both June 7, 2023 and June 8, 2023 to inspect the bathtub and to repair and/or replace the bathtub with a shower. The request also stated that if Miller was unable to provide access on the date requested, he could schedule an alternative time. The Court found that the potential harm to Gemini stemming from the continued deterioration of the building’s structural integrity appeared to eclipse any potential inconvenience that Miller might face in granting access for vital repairs.
Miller asked the court to order Gemini to replace the defective bathtub. However, Miller did not provide sufficient evidentiary support to demonstrate that Gemini had refused to address this matter. In fact, the record reflected that Gemini had made diligent efforts to resolve the matter by requesting access from Miller for the purpose of replacing the bathtub.
Gemini’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Miller from denying access to his apartment during reasonable hours in order to replace the bathtub with a shower and perform repairs necessary to remedy the open DOB violation was granted.