Sharp v. Norwood, 681 N.E.2d 1280 (N.Y. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Sharp v. Norwood, 681 N.E.2d 1280 (N.Y. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dudley v. API Indus., Inc., 250 A.D.3d 53 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
89 N.Y.2d at 1069 Nuisance claim requiring proof of interference with enjoyment6 citing casesprivate nuisance claim1 citing court put it this way · 5 listed here
  • Dudley v. API Indus., Inc., 250 A.D.3d 53 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published 2 cites
    (private nuisance claim)
  • Stewart Title Ins. Co. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 154 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    The dismissal based upon failure of proof at trial is a determination on the merits (see Sharp v Norwood, 89 NY2d 1068, 1069 [1997]).
  • Flatbush Builders, Inc. v. Dubresil, 57 Misc. 3d 456 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2017).published
    While these facts might have supported an eviction proceeding on the ground that respondent violated a ‘substantial obligation’ of her tenancy, petitioners did not assert this ground in their holdover petition.” (Sharp, 89 NY2d at 1069 [ci…
  • 31-67 Astoria Corp. v. Cabezas, No. 2017 NYSlipOp 50432(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Apr. 7, 2017).published 2 cites
    Partnership v Richter , 186 Misc 2d 620, 621-622 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000], citing Sharp v Norwood , 89 NY2d 1068, 1069 [1997]).
  • Herald Towers LLC v. Perry, 190 Misc. 2d 500 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2001).published
    A landlord may demonstrate this by showing that it has been “repeatedly forced to institute nonpayment proceedings and to serve rent demands on respondent to collect chronically late rental payments” (Sharp v Norwood, 89 NY2d 1068, 1069 [1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter H. Sharp Et Al., as Executors of Peter J. Sharp, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
Angela Norwood Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
May 8, 1997.
Published opinion
681 N.E.2d 1280
1997 N.Y. LEXIS 753
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Belkin, Burden, Wenig & Goldman, L. L. P., New York City (Magda L. Cruz and Sherwin Belkin of counsel), for appellants., Robert E. Levy, New York City, for Angela Norwood, respondent.
Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the. Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners, owners of shares in a cooperative building in which respondent resides as a rent-controlled tenant, instituted[*1069] this summary holdover proceeding to recover possession of the apartment (see, RPAPL 711 [1]; CCA 204). Petitioners claimed that respondent’s chronic tardiness in meeting her monthly rental obligations constituted a "nuisance” warranting eviction pursuant to the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations (see, 9 NYCRR 2204.2 [a] [2] [tenant may be evicted where "(t)he tenant is committing or permitting a nuisance in such housing accommodations”]).

Civil Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, holding that petitioners failed to state a claim of nuisance. The Appellate Term reversed and remitted for trial, on the ground that "[c]hronic late payment and nonpayment of rent may constitute a nuisance warranting eviction if not adequately explained by the tenant.” After a trial, Civil Court again dismissed the petition, concluding that petitioners did not prove any conduct by respondent that "would rise to the level of nuisance behavior.” The Appellate Term, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed for the same reason. At the next level of appellate review, the Appellate Division affirmed, with one Justice concurring separately and two Justices dissenting. The Appellate Division then granted petitioners leave to appeal to this Court (see, CPLR 5602 [b] [2] [i]).

We agree that petitioners failed to prove their claim of nuisance. The specific harm petitioners claimed to have suffered as a result of respondent’s conduct was that they were repeatedly forced to institute nonpayment proceedings and to serve rent demands on respondent to collect chronically late rental payments. While these facts might have supported an eviction proceeding on the ground that respondent violated a "substantial obligation” of her tenancy, petitioners did not assert this ground in their holdover petition (see, 9 NYCRR 2204.2 [a] [1]; Carol Mgt. Corp. v Mendoza, 197 AD2d 687). Having opted to pursue their remedy in the context of a nuisance case, petitioners were required to establish that respondent’s conduct "interfere^] with the use or enjoyment” of their property (see, e.g., Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., 41 NY2d 564, 568). Petitioners failed, however, to offer any evidence on this issue. Therefore, the holdover petition was properly dismissed on the merits for lack of proof.

We need not and do not decide whether chronic late payment or nonpayment of rent, when combined with aggravating circumstances, could ever support an eviction proceeding for a "nuisance” within the meaning of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations.

[*1070] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.