$______ DEFAULT JUDGMENT ? LANDLORD'S NEGLIGENCE ? NUISANCE ?PLAINTIFFS CONTEND THAT DEFENDANT OWNER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TOPLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON PREMISES,ENDANGERING PLAINTIFF NEIGHBORS ? PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT ENGAGE INMEDIATION RESULTS OF WHICH PLAINTIFFS MAINTAIN DEFENDANT FAILED TOCOMPLY WITH ? DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ANDFOUND IN DEFAULT ? DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENTDENIED.

• Pages: 5-7

approximately 4 years after the incident. The plaintiff argued that

the immobility associated with the bilateral patella fractures, that

was superimposed on long-standing diabetes, was causally related

to the formation of bilateral lower leg decubitus ulcers and the de-

velopment of gangrene on one side which ultimately dictated the

amputation of the foot, and that the pain and suffering was partic-

ularly great. Additionally, it is felt that although cases involving di-

abetics are often challenging to a plaintiff because of the

perception that significant health issues would have plagued a

plaintiff, irrespective of injuries sustained in an accident, the fact

that the patient was at the advanced age of 96 at the time of the

accident and was doing well until the accident occurred complicated

the defendants’ ability to so compromise the plaintiff’s case.

Regarding liability, the plaintiff did not identify a particular defect,

but argued that the incident would not have occurred unless the in-

staller had done so in a negligent manner. In this regard, the

plaintiff stressed that the installer was called back to the premises

because of problems with the door on several occasions during the

months leading up to the accident, and that the owner, who had a

non-delegable duty, had actual notice of the continuing difficulties.

It should be noted that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judg-

ment on liability as to both defendants had been granted.

$150,000 DEFAULT JUDGMENT – LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE – NUISANCE –

PLAINTIFFS CONTEND THAT DEFENDANT OWNER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON PREMISES,

ENDANGERING PLAINTIFF NEIGHBORS – PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT ENGAGE IN

MEDIATION RESULTS OF WHICH PLAINTIFFS MAINTAIN DEFENDANT FAILED TO

COMPLY WITH – DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND

FOUND IN DEFAULT – DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

DENIED.

New York County, NY

The plaintiffs’ commenced this action against the

defendant owners of the neighboring building, for

an alleged nuisance emanating therefrom. The

plaintiffs maintained that over a several-year

period, the defendant was an absentee landlord

and was aware of and allowed illegal activity to

be conducted on his property. The defendant

disputed the characterization of him as an

“Absentee landlord.”

The plaintiffs own a residence adjacent to a property

owned by the defendant on West 123rd Street in New

York City. The plaintiffs were fearful for their safety due

to the goings on at the defendant’s property. The

plaintiffs maintained that, after making complaints to

the NYPD and City of New York, the defendant’s

agents harassed, threatened and intimidated the

plaintiffs continually. The plaintiffs claimed that the

defendant entered into an agreement with the City

to clean up the property, but that nothing changed

and the property continued to be a harbor for drug

dealing, prostitution and other illegal activities with

the knowledge of the defendant and, in fact, with the

participation of the defendant’s building

superintendent.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant knowingly

allowed his tenants and employees at his building to

harass, annoy, and injure the plaintiffs by throwing

rocks, threatening physical harm, allowing illegal all-

night activities including prostitution, a bottle club,

gambling, illicit drug dealing, hurling homophobic

slurs, and allowing excessive noise, all of which inter-

fered with the plaintiffs’ rights including the right to

quiet enjoyment and not to be subject to such nui-

sances and harassment. The plaintiffs argued that the

acts or omissions of the defendant and his employ-

ees caused the plaintiffs to be injured as plaintiffs suf-

fered noise, fear, and the necessity of facing and

pushing past drug dealers and their intoxicated cus-

tomers on and around the defendant’s property. On

August 31, 2013, a brick was thrown into the window

of the plaintiffs’ property which was believed to be in

retaliation for a complaint made by the plaintiffs

about food being sold outside the building, alcohol

consumption on the sidewalk and the noise created

by the maintenance of the illegal social club/bottle

club/narcotics “Spot” by the defendant and his

employees.

The defendant argued that he visited the building as

often as necessary to ensure its operation. The defen-

dant claimed he was the first and only owner of the

building to take action against the “Bottle club,”

which I am told has been in existence since the

1960’s. The defendant argued that, not only had he

taken action, but he succeeded in facilitating the im-

proved safety of the building. The defendant pointed

to his having installed bright lights in front of the build-

ing; installation of a digital surveillance system; pro-

viding the NYPD a list of authorized persons; and

agreement to unannounced NYPD inspections. The

defendant claimed he was powerless to control who

walks on the street or hangs around the public side-

walks near the building. The defendant argued that

the plaintiffs were attempting to hold him responsible

for all activities in the proximity of the building.

The defendant asserted that he had not breached

the terms of the stipulation of settlement entered into

with the City, and that the plaintiffs did not present

any evidence to support that baseless allegation.

Moreover, the defendant stated that he did not recall

ever having promised to fire the building superinten-

dent as contended was part of the mediation discus-

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 5

New York Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now