free from any violations. As a result of the complete lack of essential services on May 22,
respondent was forced to live in transitional housing provided by the Church Avenue Merchants
Business Association for two months after gaining legal possession of the apartment..
Legal Analysis
Petitioner asserts that
the grounds for restoring the tenant to possession should be confined to those subdivisions stated
in CPLR §5015. The Court disagrees. Restoration to the subject premises should be
assessed and determined on the merits of each case and not so narrowly construed that justice and
equity are relegated to the back burner. In the case at bar, there was a mere $499 due in arrears.
Through no fault of his own, respondent was legally evicted from the premises. It is clear that the
DSS check was dated prior to respondent's lawful eviction, and the evidence showed that
respondent's social worker, Jill Shuler, attempted to persuade DSS to release the checks to
petitioner. For some unknown reason the DSS checks were not delivered on time and
consequently respondent was evicted. Had the DSS checks been timely released, the eviction
would not have taken place.
Respondent was restored to possession on the condition that he tender $2074.19 to petitioner
on or before May 22, 2007, which was done. That amount reflected the $499.19 for arrears
through May 2007 as evidenced by petitioner's billing statement. What is apparent is that [*3]petitioner precipitously engaged demolition contractors only hours
after the eviction. Petitioner's actions clearly evince an intent to thwart respondent's possible right
to restoration to the premises.
Contrary to petitioner's assertion this Court did not misapprehend the facts or misapply the