Neither Landlord Nor Tenant Gets Attorney's Fees in HP Case

Co-op shareholder tenant sued landlord cooperative corporation, co-op board members, and HPD in housing court, seeking repairs arising from a pipe that burst in 2006. She asked the court to order landlord to determine the source of the leak and to make sure it had stopped. Landlord and tenant were unable to settle the case when tenant insisted that landlord tear down walls to find the source of the leak. While the case was pending and after a trial began, the court ordered tenant to provide access to landlord to remedy a mold condition in the apartment. After that work was completed, the case was marked off calendar in 2010.

Almost a year later, landlord asked the court to dismiss the case as abandoned but later withdrew that request. Another year later, in 2012, landlord asked the court to restore the case for completion of the 2010 trial and dismissal of the case. Instead, the court dismissed the case as abandoned because it had been more than a year since there was any action. Tenant asked the court to vacate that decision, claiming that the mold condition still existed.

The parties then signed a settlement agreement. In September 2014, tenant asked the court for attorney's fees, claiming that she was the prevailing party. Landlord in turn claimed that it won the case. The court ruled against both sides. Landlord never disputed that there was mold in the apartment and was ready to repair. The real dispute in the case was based on tenant's desire to direct landlord in how to correct the conditions, as well as access issues. Tenant also waited for at least three years after the pipe burst to start the court case. Both sides dragged the case out unnecessarily. 

Sondhi v. 69 West 9 Owners Corp.: 46 Misc.3d 1209(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50028(U) (Civ. Ct. NY; 1/15/15; Kraus, J)