Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

there is no "comfort, repose, peace or quiet" to be had in a burned-out apartment. It has long been
the case that an unlawful eviction requires a "wrongful act by the landlord which deprives the
tenant of the beneficial enjoyment or actual possession of the demised premises." (Barash v
[*7]Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77,
82, 308 NYS2d 649 [1970]; Marchese v
Great Neck Terrace Associates, L.P., 138 AD3d 698, 699, 29 NYS3d 432 [2nd Dept
2016]). There is no allegation in any pleading that the fire was caused by the respondent's
wrongful act or omission. Even if changing the locks were a wrongful act, that act did not
deprive the petitioner of "beneficial enjoyment or actual possession" of the apartment; the
October 24, 2020 fire did that.

Further, the court notes that by the time the amended petition was served, petitioner had, in
her words, "changed the locks and got access to my apartment again."[FN13]
In essence, petitioner's claim that she had been unlawfully evicted because the locks were
changed from October 24, 2020 through January 6, 2021 is, and was, moot.[FN14]
(Berger v Prospect Park Residence,
LLC, 166 AD3d 937, 938, 87 NYS3d 572 [2nd Dept, 2018] ["courts ordinarily may not
consider questions that have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances and
when a determination would have no practical effect on the parties, the matter is moot and the
court generally has no jurisdiction to decide the matter"] (internal citations omitted); see also,
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 810-811, 766 NYS2d
654 [2003]).

Finally, the court turns to the allegation that respondent has unlawfully evicted petitioner