contained specific recordkeeping provisions or anything else which might invalidate the
Amended Lease. Indeed, the By-Laws section pertaining to proprietary leases contains no
formal procedure for amendment, (By-Laws Art V), and the Lease provided only
that "the provisions cannot be changed orally" (Lease ¶ 50). As to the
latter, the changes were made in writing: the Amended Lease.
Footnote 6:To the extent that
Defendant challenges Plaintiff's timeframe based on an earlier affidavit stating that the
leaks began in "approximately January 2006," the affidavit's timeframe is neither exact
nor materially different from late 2005 (see 5/7 888, et seq.). Moreover, Plaintiff's
Bill of Particulars clarifies that evidence of wall infiltration — for
example, "wall swelling and bursting" — predated visible water infiltration.
Footnote 7:Plaintiff previously
stayed at hotels in China before moving to a more permanent residence (5/7
885:22-886:7).
Footnote 8:Defendants challenged
Plaintiff's testimony based on the Bill of Particulars, which indicated stays of varying
lengths and at various locations (Ct Exh 4A ¶ 21[b]). Based on the phrasing
of Defendants' Demand for a Bill of Particulars, however, the Court is satisfied with
Plaintiff's explanation that she interpreted the question to mean paid
accommodations (see Defs Motion in Limine, Exh 8 ¶ 21[a]-[d]).
This would exclude a prolonged stay with family.
Footnote 9:There was at least one
violation issued by the New York City Department of Buildings on May 16, 2013 for
"excessive water leakage through terrace door."
Footnote 10:Plaintiff's contention
that "no proof was ever supplied that the Apartment had been properly remediated from
mold conditions," (Pl post-trial memo at 3), is refuted by the overwhelming