A New York court has ruled in favor of Boulevard Together Master Tenant, LLC, allowing the landlord access to a tenant's apartment for necessary repairs. This decision affects tenant Sharon Sandy, who has raised concerns about alleged harassment and intimidation from the landlord. The ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining safe living conditions in rental properties.
The case, Boulevard Together Master Tenant, LLC v. Sandy, was decided by Judge Aaron D. Maslow of the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, on April 7, 2026. The court's decision allows the landlord to perform repairs in Sandy's apartment, which the landlord argued were necessary to address building-related violations.
Boulevard Together Master Tenant, LLC initiated the action seeking access to Sandy's apartment at 884 Ashford Street, Apartment 5B, Brooklyn, New York. The landlord claimed that access was essential to remedy conditions in the apartment and to address violations related to the building. In response, Sandy filed a cross-motion seeking a temporary restraining order against the landlord, alleging harassment and intimidation, including claims of retaliatory eviction and false imprisonment.
Sandy, a 65-year-old tenant with documented mental and physical disabilities, asserted that she had suffered significant injuries when an adjacent wall collapsed onto her while she was sleeping. She claimed these injuries included traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, along with ongoing emotional distress and anxiety linked to the landlord's actions. Sandy also contended that the landlord's attempts to gain access to her apartment constituted harassment and an unlawful eviction.
The court reviewed both parties' motions and arguments. In its ruling, the court granted the landlord's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing access to the apartment for repairs. Judge Maslow stated, "The governing lease expressly requires Defendant to provide access for inspections and repairs upon reasonable notice." The court noted that the landlord had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, as the lease included provisions that obligated Sandy to allow access for necessary repairs.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining safe living conditions, stating, "The existence of outstanding housing violations implicates health and safety concerns that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages alone." The ruling highlighted that the landlord faced potential fines and regulatory consequences if repairs were not made promptly.
In contrast, the court denied Sandy's request for an injunction against the landlord. Judge Maslow found that Sandy did not meet the necessary standard to demonstrate that the landlord's actions constituted harassment or that they posed a threat to her rights. The court noted that Sandy's claims were largely based on past events and did not provide sufficient evidence of ongoing unlawful conduct by the landlord.
The court concluded that the balance of equities favored the landlord, as allowing access for repairs was necessary to comply with housing laws and maintain the property in a safe condition. Judge Maslow stated, "Where the requested relief merely enforces contractual and legal obligations and is necessary to maintain property in a safe condition, the equities favor the party seeking to perform such obligations."
As a result of the ruling, Sandy is required to provide access to her apartment for repairs during designated hours, with the landlord's agents allowed to enter the premises upon reasonable notice. If the repairs cannot be completed while the apartment is occupied, Sandy may be required to temporarily relocate to another unit designated by the landlord.
This decision underscores the legal obligations of tenants to allow landlords access for necessary repairs, as well as the landlord's duty to maintain safe living conditions. It also highlights the challenges faced by tenants who may feel threatened or harassed by their landlords while navigating disputes over access and repairs.
Looking ahead, the ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving landlord-tenant disputes over access for repairs. It reinforces the idea that landlords have a right to access rental properties to fulfill their legal obligations, provided they follow the proper procedures outlined in leases and housing codes.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Sandy plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. The outcome of this case may influence future landlord-tenant relationships and the legal standards surrounding access to rental properties for repairs.