Housing Court Decision Summaries
Warnock v. Visconti
Oct. 18, 2006
Appellate Court:
Trial Court:
Civil Housing Court, Kings County
Trial Judge:
Hon. Sabrina Kraus
Type of Action or Proceeding:
Holdover Proceeding -- Licensee
Issues/Legal Principles:
The Court denies landlord's motion for discovery in the form of a deposition of elderly tenant with multiple medical conditions but provided for interrogatories with responses to 4 of the landlord's 55 categories of documentary requests.
Source:
NYLJ, 31:3, Oct. 18, 2006
Referred Statutes:
RPAPL §745 (1), CCA §1303 (a)
Summary:
The landlord sought to evict an elderly tenant with multiple medical problems including Alzheimer's, advancing dementia, and hearing deficiencies on grounds that she is a licensee whose right to occupy the premises was terminated by her sister and her nephew. The Department of Social Services moved by order to show cause for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.
Tenant interposed a jury demand and defended alleging that she is a rent controlled tenant who has continuously resided and paid rent at the subject premises since 1971. The landlord moved to strike the jury demand as untimely under RPAPL §745 which requires a jury demand be asserted at the time the petition is noticed to be heard. The landlord further moved for discovery in the form of a deposition of the tenant and proposed a discovery request containing 55 categories of documents.
The Court held that the time frame for filing a jury demand as set forth by CCA §1303, i.e. at the same time as filing the answer, would be taken as a statutory exception to RPAPL §745(1) and was therefore the instant jury demand was in fact timely. The Court further held that the landlord's moving papers were not supported by an affidavit from someone with first hand knowledge and therefore failed to establish ample need for discovery. The Court determined that a deposition would cause a severe and unnecessary hardship to the tenant because of her age, medical condition, and the appointment of a guardian. Additionally, the Court deemed the landlord's request for fifty-five categories of documents dating from 1971 to present was palpably overbroad. However, because the tenant raises the affirmative defense of tenancy since 1971, the landlord would be permitted to serve interrogatories limited to the issues raised in the affirmative defense and tenant was directed to produce documents requested in four of the fifty-five requested categories.
Notes:
Decision:
|
|
|
|
Search will only search cases from June 2002. For cases prior to that, please browse the 1996-2002 archives:
About HCD
NYC Housing Court
When you get legal papers, go here to see how Housing Court is supposed to work.
The Legal System
Some perspective might help in court.
Self Help: Nolo Press
Selected articles from Nolo Press
Other Sources
PrairieLaw House/Home Channel
|
