Real Estate Law Firm in Queens Wins Property Eviction

Initially, the tenant attributed the rent delays to temporary cash flow difficulties and repeatedly assured the landlord that payment would be made shortly.

Relying on these representations, the landlord allowed additional time for performance, hoping to preserve the lease relationship.

However, rent arrears accumulated over several months, management fees remained unpaid, and the tenant gradually stopped engaging in meaningful communication, effectively maintaining possession without legal justification.

Recognizing that voluntary resolution was no longer feasible, the landlord consulted a real estate law firm in Queens to evaluate legal options for terminating the tenancy and recovering possession.

During the consultation phase, the landlord expressed concern that the tenant might transfer possession to a third party or alter the premises while the case was pending.

The real estate law firm in Queens reviewed available procedural safeguards and structured the litigation timeline to ensure that the tenant’s possession status remained fixed throughout the proceedings.

This approach ensured that the court’s eventual judgment would be enforceable and that no intervening actions would undermine the effectiveness of the final ruling.

A key component of the case involved demonstrating that the tenant’s rent arrears were not isolated or minimal but constituted a sustained and material breach of the lease.

The legal team emphasized that the tenant had exceeded acceptable delinquency thresholds and had shown no credible intent or capacity to cure the default.

Text messages, payment records, and notice documentation were compiled to establish that the landlord clearly communicated termination of the lease and that such notice was properly delivered.

In its ruling, the court found that the tenant’s prolonged rent delinquency satisfied the conditions for lease termination and that the landlord had properly communicated termination intent.

The court further determined that the tenant retained no independent right to possession once the lease had ended and that continued occupancy lacked legal justification.

Litigation costs were assessed against the tenant, and the landlord reported significant relief after resolving a dispute that had placed prolonged financial strain on the property.