On May 9, 2007, a Unanimous New York County Supreme Court Jury Found James C. Couri to be a Nuisance.

"After a three week trial, on May 9, 2007, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Pavias and against Couri. The jury found that Couri's conduct constituted a nuisance, rejecting Couri's claim that the Pavias brought the action in retaliation for Couri's initiation of the DCHR proceeding. The jury also found that Couri breached the lease by not providing the Pavias access to the Apartment to repair a water leak and in not providing the Pavias with a set of keys and the access code to the Apartment. As to Couri's claims, the jury found against Couri and for the Pavias, determining that the Pavias did not breach the warranty of habitability, nor did the Pavias commit fraud in the inducement in connection with the lease, nor did George Pavia maliciously prosecute Couri in connection with Couri's arrest for sending numerous harassing letters by fax to George Pavia and others and for making numerous harassing telephone calls to the Pavias.

At trial, in support of their claims for nuisance, the Pavias presented evidence of conduct directed at the Pavias and at a tenant who leased the apartment above the Couris. This evidence indicated that sometime during 2000, the Pavias' relationship with the Couris deteriorated, [footnote: omitted] and that Couri began a course of conduct which resulted in the commencement of this action seeking ejectment."

The Pavias testified that Couri made repeated and numerous telephone calls to them of a harassing nature, frequently as early as 6:00 am, made repeated and groundless complaints regarding the Apartment, and engaged in conduct which interfered with their quiet enjoyment of their apartment. Most significantly, the Pavias presented evidence that Couri, in connection with their landlord tenant dispute, faxed about 200 hundred letters in which he described George Pavia in demeaning and derogatory language, accusing him, without substantiation, of illegal and unauthorized acts and threatened to, and did, complain to agencies and/or investigate bodies about the unsubstantiated allegations. Couri faxed these letters to George Pavia, who is an attorney, at his law firm, as well as faxing certain letters to the New York Times, The New York Law Journal, the Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department, the State Inspector General, and the Internal Revenue Service.

Evidence regarding similar conduct by Couri directed at the tenant in the apartment above the Couris was also  introduced. There was evidence that Couri made numerous telephone calls to the tenant complaining about activities in his apartment and evidence that he faxed 40-50 letters to the tenant's various workplaces containing unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory language. [Footnote: Evidence was also introduced that Couri sent harassing letters to the tenant's lawyers, and made unsubstantiated complaints about the tenant's lawyers to the First Department disciplinary committee.]

Additionally, evidence was introduced that Couri faxed a similar type of letter containing derogatory and demeaning language and unsubstantiated allegations about Antonia Pavia to a well-known New York hospital where Couri mistakenly believed she was employed.

The Pavias argued that not only were the number and content of the faxes outrageous, but that by sending the faxes to George Pavia's law firm and to the tenant's places of business, Couri intended to harass, threaten and intimidate the Pavias and the tenant to accede to Couri's demands regarding his complaints about his tenancy."

---From the Decision and Order of Hon. Joan A. Madden, Supreme Court, State of New York, June 25, 2007.