WHAT IS A NUISANCE CLAIM FOR EVICTION PURPOSES

Another factor in this case was that the landlord waited 8 months after the fire incident before it sought to terminate the tenancy.

Riverbay Corp. v. Scott, 2020 NY Slip Op 50366 - NY: County Court, Civil Court March 25, 2020:

"....Nuisance is defined in the residential landlord-tenant context as "a condition that threatens the comfort and safety of others in the building" and generally is evidenced by "a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct". Frank v Park Summit Realty Corp (175 AD2d 33, 35-36, 573 NYS2d 655, 657 [1st Dep't], mod on other grounds 79 NY2d 789, 587 NE2d 287, 579 NYS2d 649 [1991]). "One incident a pattern does not make," Goodhue Residential Co v Lazansky (1 Misc 3d 907[A], 781 NYS2d 624 [Civ Ct NY Co 2003]), each case must be decided on its own facts, Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Moldoff (187 Misc 458, 460, 63 NYS2d 385, 387 [App Term 1946], aff'd, 272 AD 1039, 74 NYS2d 910 [1st Dep't 1947]), and a high threshold of proof is required for eviction based on nuisance, Domen Holding Co v Aranovich (1 NY3d 117, 124, 802 NE2d 135, 139, 769 NYS2d 785, 789 [2003]).

Here, on the one hand, Respondent-Tenant's conclusory assertion that she had no idea of who or what caused the fires simply was not credible. She has lived in the apartment for over twenty years, she was home when at least three of the fires occurred and members of her immediate family were there when she was at work. The absence of testimony from any of those family members, named as Respondent-Occupants and present during the relevant 24-hour period, only emphasized the shortcomings of Respondent-Tenant's testimony, as did her failure to provide any explanation for why no one else in the family testified. This is not a horror film and the fires were not incidents of spontaneous, poltergeist-inspired combustion. Surely one or more members of the family knows, or has an idea about, what happened.

On the other hand, the testimony of Coop City Officer Pitt that Respondent-Tenant's son told him he started the fires constitutes some evidence of the cause of the fires, which undisputedly occurred and by their very nature were dangerous. However, while FDNY Fire Marshal Lebow testified to his conclusion that the fires were "incendiary", that is, intentionally set, his report contains no information about the specific cause of the fires and no arrests were made. Further, Petitioner presented no evidence at trial of any objectionable conduct other than the essentially unexplained fires that occurred during one 24-hour period over eight months prior to the date of the termination notice and over two years prior to trial.

…..the series of fires that occurred over a 24-hour period beginning on the morning of November 3, 2017 essentially constituted one incident, which does not establish the requisite "pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct". Frank v Park Summit Realty Corp, supra, quoted in Domen Holding Co v Aranovich, supra. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Moldoff, supra (isolated attempt at suicide does not constitute nuisance "even though it might have endangered others"); Singapore Leasing LP v Diaz (59 Misc 3d 1222[A], 106 NYS3d 551 [Civ Ct Qns Co 2018]) (single incident of an alleged occupant, not the tenant of record, cursing and punching a security guard does not constitute nuisance); Pelham 1130 LLC v Cause (2017 NYLJ LEXIS 2018 [Civ Ct Bx Co 2017])(single instance of tenant striking building employee with a screwdriver, "although unconscionable", insufficient to maintain nuisance proceeding); Goodhue Residential Co v Lazansky, supra (single incident of urinating outside the building insufficient to establish nuisance claim); Pamac Realty Corp v Bush (101 Misc 2d 101, 420 NYS2d 614 [Civ Ct NY Co 1979])(single fire caused by tenant suffering from alcoholism who ignited his mattress by negligently dropping his lit cigarette on it insufficient to upon it).

As it is evident that the objectionable conduct, though certainly troubling, was both time-limited in scope and never repeated, that claim is dismissed. See e.g., New York City Housing Authority v James (186 AD2d 498, 589 NYS2d 331 [1st Dep't 1992]).

....."