Applying this statutory framework to the case at bar, this Court finds that the instant summary proceeding filed by the petitioner is a retaliatory eviction. The respondent made several valid complaints to Con Edison, CVR and the Town of Cortlandt regarding lack of heat and electricity and a leaking sewage into her apartment. These complaints were made from March 2025 to July 2025. The fact that petitioner served respondent with a 90-day notice of termination in August 2025 and followed that with the filing of the instant summary proceeding on or about January 2, 2026, is a classic case of retaliation. Since the instant summary proceeding was in initiated less than a year after the complaints, the presumption detailed in RPL §233-B (5) applies. Petitioners attempt to rebut this presumption by arguing that the summary proceeding filed previously in May 2024 negates the finding of retaliation. The Court disagrees.
Respondent Kohut filed a reply affirmation with exhibits that are photographs depicting texts between her and the petitioner regarding the sewage leaking into her apartment as far back as February 2021. Additionally, respondent Kohut's reply affirmation also includes photographs of texts, dated April 2022, she sent to the petitioner regarding numerous repairs that her apartment required. Petitioner's self-serving assertions that he is the actual victim of retaliation by the respondent is unpersuasive and not supported by the record before this Court. Based upon all the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of the Respondents.
All other arguments raised on these motions and evidence submitted by the parties in connection thereto have been considered by this court notwithstanding the specific absence of reference thereto.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is,