At trial landlord presented no rent records or direct proof to establish the rent charged for tenant's apartment, or any similarly situated apartment, on May 31, 1968. Indeed, there was no proof that the apartment was even occupied at that time. Landlord's case rested solely upon the testimony of its principle managing director of the hotel since 1962 who had no independent recollection of rentals and merely offered general testimony as to the hotel's procedure in registering apartments. The landlord opined that the unit was not stabilized because it was not among those registered as such with the then extant hotel trade association. The Appellate Term ruled that "this circular evidence, standing alone, was insufficient to meet landlord's burden of proof on the critical issue of coverage or exemption under the statutory scheme." The lower court had held for the landlord but the Appellate Term reversed and dismissed the petition since the landlord failed to establish a basis for eviction by preponderant evidence.

Tenant was in the hospital at the time the landlords disposed of his property without serving him any legal papers. Tenant relocated but he suffered the devastating loss of his property. The court ruled that the tenant may recover the market value of lost or destroyed personal property measured immediately before the loss. Purchase price is relevant, but is impacted by the age, use, and deterioration of the property. Unused property has a market value. The court found that much of tenant's property consisted of irreplaceable artwork and books from his native country, Egypt. The court characterized the tenant as an expert on its value since he "demonstrated the requisite experience and knowledge" of the rarity and significance of this art and literature. Although tenant is an interested party, the court regarded his appraisals as conservative and his opinion credible.

The court assessed each item of property lost by the tenant and gave it a monetary value. The court concluded that the total value of his lost property was $19,287.50. Since the tenant only asked for $17,000 in his complaint, a default judgment may not exceed the complaint's demand, nor may the judgment be entered against a defendant that was not properly served. Therefore the tenant was only awarded a monetary judgment against one of the defendants for only $17,000. The court, however, ruled that since the tenant's eviction was unlawful, he is also entitled to treble damages. However, cases commenced in Civil Court only permit judgments up to $25,000. Thus, even though he could have recovered $51,000 with treble damages, the court was constrained to limit his award to $25,000.

The Appellate Term reversed the court's decision, holding: "By prosecuting a holdover proceeding against the subtenants to judgment, tenant effectively cured the violation complained of. The court's own order foreclosed tenant from physically removing the subtenants within ten days. As the court itself recognized that tenant had been placed `in a catch-22 situation,' a forfeiture of the lease should not result in such circumstances."

The notice to cure and notice to terminate list a number of allegations other than the use of a washing machine. The notices also alleged, for example, removal and destruction of a refrigerator, altering gas line, and removing kitchen sink and bathroom door. The court held that with respect to the waiver argument, this case involves more than a mere washing machine and thus the waiver argument cannot result in the dismissal of the case.

Nonetheless, the notices lack any date or specifics. When the landlord responded to the tenant's motion to dismiss, the landlord's affidavit supplied a wealth of specific facts, including dates. The court thus ruled that the landlord had sufficient details, but since these were omitted from the notices, the notices are inadequate to allow the tenant to prepare a defense. For this reason the petition was dismissed since predicate notices cannot be amended.

Tenant also raised the defense of laches. To prevail on this defense, proof must be shown that the landlord had a valid case (i.e., legitimate rent was owed) but delayed in asserting the claim (i.e., neglected to demand or collect the rent) to the prejudice of the tenant and that tenant was not aware that the landlord was going to assert the claim (i.e., seek the rent). The landlord's agent, however believed that the tenant was going to receive Section 8 benefits. But once it was determined that the tenant was not on Section 8, the landlord began the nonpayment petition. In a stipulation, the landlord gave the tenant over two months to either pay the arrears or leave without a money judgment against the tenant. For these reasons the court refused to allow the case to be dismissed, but did stay the warrant for ten days.