Joel S. Kuchar

A commercial landlord applied for a declaration that a lease with its tenant gym operator was terminated and sought an order for possession due to alleged nuisance caused by excessive noise.

The evidentiary record consisted largely of hearsay and minimal firsthand evidence, and the landlord had not complied with procedural requirements for expert evidence regarding acoustics.

The tenant’s responding materials were also procedurally deficient and attempted to seek relief, including an interlocutory injunction, without proper originating process or motion materials.

The court found the pleadings and evidentiary record insufficient to permit an intelligible adjudication of the parties’ rights and obligations.

The application was adjourned to allow the parties to clarify issues, consider proper procedures, and potentially pursue settlement.

A renovation contractor brought an action to recover unpaid amounts for residential renovation work and to enforce a construction lien.

The homeowners alleged the project was subject to a $100,000 budget cap and a mid‑January completion deadline and advanced a substantial counterclaim alleging defective workmanship and misrepresentation by the contractor and an associated interior designer.

The court rejected the homeowners’ evidence as lacking credibility and accepted the contractor’s evidence that the parties agreed to a revised renovation budget with additional extras requested during construction.

The court found the total contract price, including extras, exceeded the amount paid and that the homeowners owed the contractor outstanding amounts.

After accounting for certain deficiencies and repair issues, the court reduced the amount recoverable and dismissed the claims against the interior designer and her company.