It's not often that toilet-flushing cases make their way to the Appellate Division. So when we came across the matter of Chi-Am Realty, LLC v. Guddahl , we couldn't resist examining the case.
According to Chi-Am, Guddahl was responsible for perpetrating a nuisance over the course of 18 months by causing five incidents of flooding and refusing to allow Chi-Am's representatives into the apartment to determine the source of the problem.
Additionally, Chi-Am claimed that Guddahl's son's behavior (which included skating and playing ball in the building's common areas) was disruptive to others and also comprised a nuisance.
In opposition, Guddahl argued that the flooding resulted from an undersized toilet and defective plumbing. And, allegedly, when Guddahl allowed the owner access to the apartment he was only given a toilet plunger to remedy the problem.
Under the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.3(b), conduct that substantially interferes with the comfort and safety of others comprises a "nuisance," particularly when there is a "pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct."
The Kings County Civil Court held that Guddahl "permitted a nuisance by allowing [his] bathroom toilet to overflow on several occasions, causing water to flood into the apartment below."
The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed and also found the son's behavior a nuisance.
After an additional appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, that court concluded that "nuisance" had been established and that, as a result, Guddahl was not entitled to a post-judgment opportunity to cure.
In other words, Guddahl's 20-year tenancy was flushed right down the toilet.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Chi-Am Realty, LLC v. Guddahl
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Chi-Am Realty, LLC v. Guddahl