Unreasonably refusing a landlord access to your apartment can result in your eviction.
In 3420 Newkirk LLC v. Sulker , the Sulkers were unwilling to allow their landlord entry into their rent-stabilized unit for the purpose of addressing a "severe water condition" that not only impacted their apartment but that of a "disabled elderly person, on dialysis, whose rent subsidy was in danger of termination owing to the deteriorated conditions therein."
After a trial, the Kings County Civil Court found that the tenants had violated a substantial obligation of their tenancy by refusing to allow their landlord access to perform repairs.
On appeal, the tenants contended they were at a severe disadvantage since they had been unrepresented at the time of the trial.
Finding no irregularity in the way the trial was conducted, the Appellate Term, 2d and 11th Judicial Districts, offered the following quote:
"[I]t is well settled that a litigant who appears pro se at trial does so at his [or her] own peril and acquires no greater rights than any other litigant" ... and, in any event, the record does not reveal that the court below failed to apply the law accurately and impartially, or that it improvidently exercised its discretion in its ruling with respect to the conduct of the proceedings and the admission of evidence.
The tenants' remaining arguments, including but not limited to, that the landlord's intention was to harass them and that the case was in retaliation for their attempts to form a tenants' association, were summarily discounted by the appellate court as contrary to the weight of the evidence and governing law, and, the judgment of possession was permitted to stand.
In other words, these tenants were deaccessed.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: 3420 Newkirk LLC v. Sulker