A New York court ruled in favor of a tenant in a case involving retaliatory eviction. The court found that the landlord's attempt to evict the tenant was in response to her complaints about unsafe living conditions. This decision impacts tenants' rights and highlights the legal protections against retaliatory actions by landlords.
The case, HR Cortlandt LLC v. Kohut, was decided on April 13, 2026, by Justice Livia Rodriguez in the Justice Court of the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County. The ruling emphasizes the importance of tenant protections under New York law, particularly regarding retaliatory eviction claims.
The tenant, Carla Kohut, and her partner, James Deronda, faced eviction from their apartment on Oregon Road. The landlord, HR Cortlandt LLC, filed a summary proceeding to regain possession of the premises, claiming that the tenants were holdovers. However, Kohut argued that the eviction was retaliatory, stemming from her complaints about the apartment's conditions.
Background
HR Cortlandt LLC, represented by attorney Matthew Aqeel, initiated the eviction process on January 1, 2026. The landlord claimed Kohut and Deronda were illegally occupying the apartment following a previous eviction notice. Kohut, represented by attorney Christine Moccia from the Hudson Valley Justice Center, countered that the eviction was retaliation for her complaints regarding various issues in the apartment, including a lack of heat and a sewage leak.
The case began to unfold in court on January 12, 2026, when Kohut appeared without her attorney. The court granted her an adjournment to secure legal representation. After several hearings and motions, the court set a timeline for the proceedings, culminating in the ruling on April 13, 2026.
Kohut's defense centered on the claim that the eviction was retaliatory, as she had made multiple complaints to Con Edison, the Town of Cortlandt, and the CVR New York regarding unsafe living conditions. She argued that the timing of the eviction notice and the subsequent legal action were directly linked to her complaints.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Kohut, granting her motion to dismiss the eviction petition. Justice Rodriguez stated, "The instant summary proceeding filed by the petitioner is a retaliatory eviction." The court emphasized that Kohut's complaints about her living conditions were valid and made in good faith, which protected her from retaliatory eviction under New York's Real Property Law.
Justice Rodriguez also noted that the eviction notice served to Kohut came less than a year after she made her complaints, establishing a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. The court found that the landlord's actions were in direct response to Kohut's attempts to secure her rights as a tenant.
The ruling highlighted deficiencies in the legal arguments presented by both parties, particularly regarding the affirmations submitted by their attorneys. The court pointed out that both sides failed to comply with the recently amended statutory language of CPLR 2106, which outlines the requirements for affirmations made under penalty of perjury.
Impact
This ruling is significant for tenants across New York, as it reinforces the protections against retaliatory eviction. The court's decision underscores that landlords cannot evict tenants simply for asserting their rights or filing complaints about living conditions. The ruling may encourage more tenants to report unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation.
The decision also serves as a reminder for landlords to ensure that their legal proceedings comply with statutory requirements. The court's emphasis on the importance of proper legal documentation may lead to more careful preparation of eviction cases in the future.
What's Next
The landlord, HR Cortlandt LLC, has the option to appeal the ruling. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving retaliatory eviction claims in New York.