Judge Cheryl Gonzales
Tenants sued seeking imposition of civil penalties against owners, and relocation expenses from them. Owners cross-moved for dismissal of the proceeding. Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) previously inspected the building and issued violations for tenants to vacate their apartments. Also, Department of Buildings issued a partial vacate order citing “imminent danger to life and public safety of the occupants…due to construction work being performed…in the multiple dwelling.” Tenants remained out of possession and asserted such violations were not corrected, moving for imposition of penalties, including costs and attorney fees. Owners argued the mere placement of violations was insufficient to request civil penalties, contending it was HPD’s responsibility to provide relocation services to tenants. The court stated owners failed to state a basis for dismissal of the proceeding on grounds tenants’ request for civil penalties was premature, as the City Administrative Code provides for a court to direct owners to correct violations and assess penalties as provided under the Code. It also found owners’ allegation the request for relocation expenses could not serve as a basis of a proper cause of action meritless, and denied the cross-motion.
