Tenants' Right to Assemble Has Limits, Panel Says
New York Law Journal
Andrew Keshner
May 13, 2011
Though tenants have a "broad" legal right to meet in their building without landlord interference, a Manhattan appellate court has ruled that the right is not "unbridled."
The owners of 1234 Broadway LLC, a single room occupancy building on 31st Street, sought to stop tenants from assembling in the eighth-floor hallway for a proposed meeting run by Goddard Riverside Community Center's West Side SRO Law Project, a legal assistance group. The owner argued that the meeting could attract a crowd large enough to obstruct access to community bathrooms and showers and create an unsafe condition in the 325-room, 1,000-tenant building in violation of city fire and building codes and state law.
In ruling for the owners, a panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a lower ruling by Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden (See Profile), who denied a preliminary injunction motion in May 2010.
Writing for the unanimous panel in 1234 Broadway LLC v. West Side SRO Law Project, 4624N, Justice Nelson S. Roman (See Profile) ruled yesterday that tenants' meeting rights under Real Property Law 230(2) were bound by building and fire code ordinances on unobstructed corridors and exits. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings.
"While it is clear that the right to meet conferred upon tenants by [Real Property Law] 230(2) is broad, allowing a meeting 'in any location on the premises,' the statute itself does not confer an unbridled right to meet, instead requiring that meetings be held in 'a peaceful manner,' held at 'reasonable hours,' and held 'without obstructing access to the premises or facilities,'" Justice Roman wrote.
Presiding Justice Luis A. Gonzalez (See Profile) and Justices James M. Catterson (See Profile), Roslyn H. Richter (See Profile) and Sheila Abdus-Salaam (See Profile) were also on the panel that decided the case on briefs submitted on March 3, 2011.
In early November 2009, the SRO law project, a unit of the Goddard Riverside Community Center, distributed flyers to occupants announcing a Nov. 21 meeting on the eighth-floor hallway.
Two days before the meeting, 1234 Broadway filed an order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The complaint noted the eighth-floor premises were just three- to four-feet wide and had seven-foot ceilings. The meeting could attract up to 1,000 tenants, the owners said.
Justice Madden granted a temporary restraining order that restricted meetings to under 60 people during the pendency of the action. She denied the preliminary injunction application and vacated the temporary restraining order on May 14, 2010, holding that 1234 Broadway could not show the likelihood of prevailing on the merits because, among other things, it could not show the meetings would block exits or create unsafe conditions.
The appellate decision noted that attorneys for the organization said there had been three meetings and each one was attended by no more than 40 people and did not block exits.
Justice Roman wrote that the provision on tenants' meeting rights needed to be analyzed in light of building and fire code sections prohibiting a premises' obstruction. Therefore, any violation of the building code sections would be outside the protection of the provision on the rights of tenants to assemble.
"Any holding to the contrary, as posited by defendant, would allow meetings pursuant to [Real Property Law] 230(2) irrespective of any obstruction of the facilities or premises, in violation of the statute's express language and in contravention of Building Code §27-361 and §27-369," he wrote, citing the two sections addressing obstructed exits and hallways.
The panel also held that 1234 Broadway had shown prima facie entitlement to the injunction. Noting pictures and diagrams of the hallway it submitted, Justice Roman wrote, "contrary to the motion court's holding, plaintiff establishes that its premises, and in particular the location where this meeting is to occur, is of limited size such that a meeting attended by a large number of people could obstruct access to the premises of the facilities."
The Goddard Riverside Community Center and the West Side SRO Law Project was represented by the law project's director, Martha A. Weithman. She did not return a call seeking comment.
1234 Broadway LLC was represented by Santo Golino of Manhattan, who did not return a call seeking comment.