Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016

Richardson v. New York City Housing Authority—Gompers Houses

Richardson v. New York City Housing Authority—Gompers Houses
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 28, 2016 · Cohan, Ling, Schoenfeld
55 Misc. 3d 32; 50 N.Y.S.3d 786

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Charlene Richardson, appellant pro se., David I. Farber, General Counsel, New York City Housing Authority, New York City (Nancy M. Harnett and Seth E. Kramer of counsel), for respondent.

Richardson v. New York City Housing Authority—Gompers Houses

Opinion of the Court

*33OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated July 26, 2016, affirmed, without costs. Order, dated September 22, 2016, modified, by striking the condition barring tenant from filming or videotaping the required repairs to be performed by landlord; as modified, order affirmed without costs.

In the absence of any evidence that tenant’s intra-apartment video surveillance system interfered with landlord’s attempts to make required repairs, tenant should not have been barred from filming the repair work conducted within her apartment. There being no cause to further delay the abatement of the long-standing mold condition in tenant’s bathroom and to complete other previously ordered repairs, landlord is directed to undertake this work forthwith.

We have examined tenant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Schoenfeld, J.P., and Ling-Cohan, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.