Pavia v. Couri -- a Case Study
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 9/29/03)
Tenant's motion to direct repairs denied, where tenant did not allege that any repairs were needed in the tenant's answer or counterclaims. Tenant not entitled to injunctive relief which grants the ultimate relief sought in tenant's counterclaims. There are no grounds for directing landlord to undergo a mental examination, where the landlord's medical or mental condition is not in controversy in the case, and where tenant supports his claims with only conclusory allegations instead of with affidavits containing facts. A motion to dismiss is not properly granted where issue has been joined.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 1/30/04)
Landlord allowed to amend complaint to add a cause of action seeking ejectment on the grounds of nusiance. Tenant's motion to have Plaintiff/Landlord's attorney of choice disqualified denied.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 6/28/04)
Defendant/Tenant's motion for summary judgment denied where Defendant/Tenant merely reciting his version of the facts to the court, rather than establishing his entitlement to a defense as a matter of law. Issues of credibility may not be decided on a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, Defendant/Tenant unable to establish that Plaintiffs, as the owners of the Building, were not entitled to a set of keys for Defendants' apartment. With respect to the ejectment claim based on nuisance, Defendant/Tenant's denial of the underlying conduct does not entitle him to summary judgment since Plaintiff's affidavit is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 7/12/04)
Defendant/Tenant must deposit all back use and occupancy and ongoing use and occupancy, even though Plaintiff/Landlord refuses to issue Defendant/Tenant a rent stabilized lease where Plaintiff/Landlord maintains the tenancy has been terminated and Defendant/Tenant not entitled to a lease. Defendant/Tenant has not suffered a decrease in services that would warrant denying use and occupancy or reducing the amount of the legally regulated rent.
Couri v. Pavia
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2/8/05)
[This is the same case as Pavia v. Couri, above]
Plaintiff/Tenant's causes of action for abuse of process, malicious prosecution arising out of a DHCR proceeding, prima facie tort, false arrest, libel and slander, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and harassment dismissed for failure to state a claim. Also, Plaintiff/Tenant's motion for to enjoin Defendant/Landlord from filing suit and imposing other prior restraints on speech denied. Plaintiff/Tenant's motion to have Defendant/Landlord's attorney of choice disqualified is denied (again).
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2/9/05)
Defendant/Tenant's motion -- to reduce the rent on his apartment in accordance with an order of the DHCR; to stay the collection of use and occupancy and the effect of the court's July 12, 2004 decision and order; and to direct a reduction in rents based on the issuance of certain notices of violation by the Department of Buildings regarding a greenhouse at the Building -- is denied. The court stood by its July 12, 2004 order [see above], and found that such Department of Buildings notices alone are not sufficient to relieve Defendant/Tenant from payment of use and occupancy at the legal rate as set by the DHCR, particularly as Defendant/Tenant continued to reside at the Apartment.
Pavia v. Couri
(Appellate Division, 1st Dept. 4/14/05)
Defendant/Tenant's motion to the Appellate Division for a stay pending the appeal of the lower court's July 12, 2004 and February 9, 2005 orders [see both above] - denied; and sua sponte (without Plaintiff/Landlord even bothering to ask for such relief) the appeals of those orders are dismissed.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4/29/05)
[This is the same case as Pavia v. Couri, above]
Plaintiff/Tenant's motion for the Court to recuse herself denied. The Court did not restrict motion practice, which was obviously plentiful; Plaintiff/Tenant was obviously dissatisfied with the February 8, 2005 decision [SEE ABOVE], which was based on applicable legal authority and thus this motion is Plaintiff/Tenant's attempt to forum shop; and the Court never ignored Plaintiff/Tenant's letters but instructed him to seek formal relief. Plaintiff/Tenant not entitled to summary judgment. As the Court denied several applications regarding the Court's order that Plaintiff/Tenant deposit use and occupancy with the Clerk of the Court, any further challenges to such orders must be made by appeal.
Couri v. Pavia
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/12/05)
[This is the same case as Pavia v. Couri, above]
Plaintiff/Tenant's motion to compel a further deposition of Defendant/Landlord denied where Tenant waived his right to ask further questions by ending the deposition early. Moreover, Tenant's motions to strike Landlord's answer, preclude certain evidence, and for costs and sanctions denied.
Couri v. Pavia
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/12/05)
[This is the same case as Pavia v. Couri, above]
Defendant/Landlord's motion to hold Plaintiff/Tenant in contempt for failure to obey the court's February 9, 2005 order that Tenant pay use and occupancy [see above] granted to the extent of setting the matter down for a hearing on the sole issue of whether Tenant's recent illness prevented him from complying with the order. Tenant's lengthy cross-motion denied because many of Tenant's requests for relief in the cross-motion had been made repeatedly throughout the litigation and had been repeatedly denied by the court. Tenant's request that payments for use and occupancy be paid into an escrow account denied. Tenant's request that the Landlord provide a "notice for rent arrears" in accordance with RPAPL 711 and 735 denied, as these statutory requirements apply to summary proceedings, and not to this plenary action. Tenant's motion to preclude Landlord from introducing evidence to support its claim concerning a leak or Tenant's nuisance denied because there is no basis for such preclusion.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/25/05)
Plaintiff/Landlord's motion granted for an order directing future use and occupancy to be paid directly to Landlord.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/26/05)
Defendant/Tenant did not submit competent medical evidence to support his request for a stay of trial based on his alleged medical condition where he submitted random and unexplained documents regarding his medical condition and treatment. Defendant/Tenant's motion for the court to recuse itself was denied (again). Defendant/Tenant essentially argued that a court may not require competent medical proof from a litigant to stop a trial based on his medical condition. The extensive record in this case belied his allegations. Moreover, medically competent evidence is particularly significant where, as here, a jury has been selected, and where Defendant/Tenant's treating cardiologist has stated that he could go forward within 24 to 48 hours of his recent discharge form the hospital. Defendant/Tenant's latest motion for recusal was not only without merit, but appeared to be nothing more than forum shopping.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 12/18/06)
Court directed all parties to stop communicating with it via telephone calls, facsimiles or letters, due to Defendant Couri's voluminous faxes and letters to Court and his numerous messages on chamber's answering machine, despite being previously ordered not to do these things.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2/7/07)
In an effort to get the case to trial without further delay, the Court ordered Defendant Couri to: produce HIPPA compliant authorizations to plaintiffs for the four physicians whose affirmations he submitted when seeking an adjournment of the trial and to provide proof of compliance; submit written questions to be asked at the hearing by the attorney for Couri's wife, in the event that Couri is unable to attend the trial; and submit certified copies of his medical records. A contempt hearing concerning Couri was scheduled. The Court includes the transcript of shocking and threatening phone message left on her chamber's voice mail.
Pavia v. Couri
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4/12/07)
Defendant Couri's defenses based on ancient and technical Department of Building violations were largely excluded from the trial because the Court concluded that violations did not impact on the health, safety or welfare of the Couris or their use of the space and thus were not relevant or material to the breach of warranty of habitability defense. Couri's latest motion for stay was denied.
Pavia v. Couri
(Supreme Court, NY County, 3/11/2008)
Defendant's request for permission to initiate several causes of action against Plaintiffs denied as repetitive and harassing litigation tactics and Defendants claim for damages caused by mold without merit.