Landlord Claims Tenant Refused Access for Repairs

Landlord sued to evict tenant, claiming that he violated a substantial obligation of his tenancy by refusing to provide access to inspect, make repairs, and correct violations. Landlord sent tenant a Notice to Cure that listed a number of dates when tenant had refused access, and a Notice to Terminate when tenant failed to cure. The case was delayed for a while based on tenant's Hardship Declaration and ERAP application. Landlord then asked the court to schedule a conference and trial date. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that it wasn't unreasonable for him to refuse access during the pandemic and that he eventually did provide access. In response, landlord said that tenant still refused access when contractors wouldn't work as he directed, and that access wasn't meaningful given the cluttered state of the apartment. The court ruled against tenant. Whether tenant provided meaningful access or whether it was reasonable for him to complain to HPD, then refuse access for repairs, were questions of fact appropriate for trial.

689 East 187th St LLC v Mathu: 76 Misc.3d 1212(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50885(U), NYLJ No. 1664862739 (Civ. Ct. Bronx; 9/20/22; Lutwak, J)