## Facts

- Sigsbee Holding Corp. (landlord) brought a summary holdover proceeding in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, seeking to evict Mary Canavan (tenant).
- The landlord’s petition was based solely on the tenant’s removal of old, used kitchen cabinets and installation of new cabinets in their place.
- The landlord characterized the new installation as “built-in” cabinets and argued the work was an unlawful alteration amounting to waste and a substantial breach of the tenancy.
- The tenant testified the prior cabinets were in poor condition and unsafe, stating they “hung only on two nails,” and that there was “a hole in the ceiling above it with an exposed BX cable.”
- The record contained no showing that the lease barred this type of change or that the new cabinets were inferior to the old ones.
- The landlord did not prove the work damaged the premises, reduced the value of the landlord’s interest, or made a substantial, permanent change to the nature and character of the building.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential tenant commits waste or an impermissible alteration justifying eviction in a summary holdover proceeding by replacing old kitchen cabinets with new cabinets, absent proof of injury to the reversionary interest or a substantial and permanent change in the premises.

## Decision

- The court held the tenant’s cabinet replacement did not constitute waste.
- The court held the landlord failed to show a substantial breach of a tenancy obligation based on this alteration.
- The court dismissed the landlord’s holdover petition (no eviction).

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of lease restrictions, a tenant may use and occupy leased premises in any lawful manner not materially different from the way such premises are usually used and for which they are suited and constructed.
- A tenant’s right of exclusive possession allows use much like an owner’s, but the tenant may not injure the inheritance or commit waste.
- For holdover eviction based on waste or alteration, the landlord must prove actual injury to the reversionary interest or a substantial and permanent change in the nature and character of the premises.
- Whether an item is described as “built-in” is not, by itself, enough; the focus is on the practical effect of the work and any harm shown.
- Routine, reasonable apartment changes made in the course of ordinary residential living are not grounds for eviction when there is no showing of material harm; otherwise, tenants could be threatened with eviction for commonplace acts (such as driving nails to hang shelves, pictures, or curtains).

## Conclusion

Because the landlord proved only that the tenant removed deteriorated cabinets and installed new ones—without proof of damage to the landlord’s reversionary interest or a substantial, permanent change to the premises—the court treated the work as a permissible residential improvement rather than actionable waste and dismissed the eviction petition.


Sigsbee Holding Corp. v. Canavan, 240 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1963)