sent the Allcon proposal to Plaintiff. Though the parties were evidently engaged in
negotiations regarding the scope of the Allcon work, culminating in the second Allcon
proposal one year after the first, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at trial that the additions
to the scope of the work were necessary to make the Apartment habitable; in other words,
Plaintiff's failure to adequately justify her denial of access shifts the blame for the delay
to her. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to a full abatement from the time maintenance payments
ceased in 2007, until July of 2009.[FN15]
The liability shifts, however, upon Judge Kotler's September 2013 order. Until Judge
Kotler denied Defendants' request for injunctive relief to force Plaintiff to grant access to
the Apartment, fault could be ascribed solely to Plaintiff. After that point, however,
Defendants' reasonable justification for declining to enter the Apartment without
Plaintiff's consent dissipated when Judge Kotler's order informed the parties that Civil
Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief Defendants sought (Topaz Realty Corp. v Morales,
9 Misc 3d 27, 28 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005], quoting
Broome Realty Assoc. v Sek Wing Eng, 182 Misc 2d 917, 918 [App Term 1st
Dept 1999] ["[e]xcept for proceedings for the enforcement of housing standards and
applications for certain provisional remedies (CCA 209[b]), the New York City Civil
Court may not grant injunctive relief"]).
The Court believes it to be sound public policy to seek redress promptly rather than
allow the condition to worsen. When the Corporation failed to proceed further, either by
appeal of Judge Kotler's order or in Supreme Court, where the case originated and where