Moscow, August 23 (RAPSI) – A US legal action involving an apartment linked by media reports to Russian ex-senator Vitaly Malkin has been voluntarily discontinued by New York landlord AEH JAY Corp., attorney Joshua D. Bernstein, who had been representing the owner of the apartment at issue, told RAPSI.

Bernstein denied Malkin’s role in the case, explaining: “Vitaly Malkin is not a party in that lawsuit. The party I represent is 25 CC ST74B LLC, the owner of the apartment that is the subject of the lawsuit. 25 CC is owned by a trust and Vitaly Malkin is neither a beneficiary nor a trustee of the trust.”

While the court documents refer to the owner of the property simply as 22 CC SY74B LLC., a domestic limited liability company, New York Daily News reported in May that the condominium is owned by a trust belonging to Malkin’s family.

The claim was filed by landlord AEH JAY Corp. on the basis of complaints made by tenant Samuel Nappi, a wealthy energy and entertainment professional who rents the condominium directly beneath the one at issue in the case for $43,000 per month.

According to Nappi’s affidavit, the noise endures each day from about 10 in the morning to four or five in the afternoon, with a lunch break worked in. He laments: “There is continual jack hammering, I believe, into the poured concrete floors above. The sound is painful and it is inescapable. We cannot sleep in the bedrooms or use the upstairs when the noise begins. We leave the upstairs and either go downstairs, or we leave the building. Other times, we simple [sic.] do not visit for fear of living in a noise hell.”

According to the claim, Nappi’s regular oral and written complaints have failed to remedy the situation. He stopped paying rent in April 2013, but asserts in his affidavit his view that he was constructively evicted since the noise first began. As such, he intended to seek some or all of the rent he paid prior to April. The complaint notes that the landlord anticipates difficulty finding a new tenant in the case of Nappi’s departure, due to the noise issue.

The complaint sought a declaration of nuisance, a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to stop being a nuisance, and damages both for indemnification and for breach of contract.

On June 26, an attorney for the plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuation without prejudice, which stated: “Please take notice, the above-entitled action is hereby discontinued without prejudice and without costs to any party.”

In mid-August, a decision and order was released stating, “OSC deemed withdrawn as settled.”

Asked whether the case had been resolved in an out-of-court settlement, Bernstein explained, “the case was not settled. Instead, the plaintiff, AEH Jay, voluntarily discontinued the action.”