In New York City, residential leases generally require tenants to provide their landlords access to apartments to inspect, or to perform needed repairs and improvements. The Housing Maintenance Code prohibits tenants from refusing an owner or their agents access to an apartment to make repairs or improvements or to inspect the apartment to determine compliance with law. Other laws require tenants to provide access after notice by their landlord. Rent stabilization and rent control laws allow for eviction of a tenant for unreasonably refusing access. The Housing Maintenance Code provides grounds for summary eviction proceedings following a tenant’s unreasonable refusal to provide access.

New York City landlords can find themselves in a frustrating position when tenants claim required repairs, obtain housing violations, commence HP proceedings, withhold rent, or file rent reduction proceedings, while simultaneously refusing the landlord’s workers access to the apartment or placing unreasonable conditions on access.

One New York City landlord encountered such a tenant. This rent controlled tenant claimed extensive repairs were needed in her apartment. She called 311 resulting in the issuance of numerous Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) violations. She filed Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) rent reduction and harassment applications. She commenced HP proceedings seeking imposition of fines upon the owner for not performing repairs.

In the meantime, despite the landlord’s efforts to arrange access to the apartment to effectuate repairs, the tenant refused to schedule meaningful access dates, tormented and harassed workers when she did allow access, cut access days short after verbally assaulting workers, interfered with worker’s efforts to effectuate repairs, and imposed unreasonable demands, including, prohibiting workers of the landlord’s choosing to enter her apartment.

The landlord turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., for help. First, we appeared in the tenant’s several HP proceedings and filed detailed responses to the tenant’s DHCR rent reduction and harassment filings. In the HP cases, the tenant became argumentative with the Court, refused to conference the matters with the HPD attorney assigned to the case or the Court attorney, yelled at and threatened the judge, and, while demanding repairs, refused to discuss scheduling required access to the premises. Both HP proceedings were dismissed by scathing Court decisions, including, findings that, “[tenant] fails to appear before the Court at counsel table and seeks to disrupt the court room and court room proceedings. [Tenant] is unwilling to discuss the substantive issues of her case and therefore this matter is dismissed.”

While the HP proceedings were dismissed, the landlord still had a problem, specifically, numerous pending violations. The landlord had to go on the offensive. We sent the tenant access letters in accordance with appliable laws, designating access dates for repairs. When the tenant again failed to provide access, we served the tenant with a notice to cure setting a deadline for compliance. When the tenant still failed to comply, we served a notice terminating the tenancy and commenced a summary holdover eviction proceeding.

In Court, the tenant resorted to the same behavior. She argued and fought with Court personnel, including court officers and court attorneys, and even the judge. She refused to discuss the case. She issued letters accusing the Court of violating her rights. The Court referred the tenant to Adult Protective Services; the tenant did not cooperate with them either.

We pressed the case forward and prepared for trial, preparing a witness and extensive documentation to demonstrate both the landlord’s attempts to gain meaningful access to the apartment and the tenant’s refusal to cooperate. After more outbursts, personal threats against the judge, and a refusal to participate in the proceedings, court officers were forced to escort the tenant outside of the courtroom.

We proceeded with an inquest and proved the landlord’s case. After inquest, the Court awarded our client a final judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction against the tenant, execution of which the Court temporarily stayed to allow the tenant a final opportunity to provide access. The Court awarded the landlord such continuing access as necessary to correct all violations, and permitted the landlord to obtain and execute the warrant should the tenant refuse access or inhibit meaningful repairs during access hours.

Vladimir Mironenko, co-managing partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s landlord-tenant group, represented the landlord in the HP and DHCR proceedings and the Housing Court eviction proceeding.