Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion.PapersPetitioner’s Order to Show Cause for Contempt, Affirmation, Affidavits, Exhibits 1Respondent’s Order to Show Cause, Supplemental Affidavit In Support, Exhibits 2Reply, Memorandum of Support of Petitioner’s Reply 3DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing citing papers, the Decision and Order is as follows:Petitioner moves for contempt based upon respondent Okpomo’s failure to comply with a default Order dated February 16, 2018 requiring repairs in petitioner’s premises. The Court held an inquest on April 26, 2018. On June 26, 2018, respondent interposed a pro se Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate the default. On November 5, 2018 respondent appeared for the first time through his attorney. Respondent’s counsel indicated he had been unable to reach his client and the Court granted an application to adjourn until November 13, 2018 over petitioner’s objections. On November 14, 2018, the respondent appeared along with his attorney. The Court Ordered a schedule for repairs and access and adjourned the matter until December 10, 2018. Additionally, the Court Ordered that the petitioner was to complete a judicial inspection request so that a report as to compliance would be available on December 10, 2018.The issue of contempt based upon the failure to comply with the Court’s February 16, 2018 Order is ripe for decision. This Order required the petitioner to abate the conditions in an inspection report generated by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) on February 15, 2018. That report noted 89 violations in the premises, including four “C” violations for absence of gas and heat in the premises.On April 26, 2018, the Court took testimony from the petitioner as to the failure to repair and the scope of the damages in the subject premises. The petitioner testified that she has lived in the subject premises for approximately eight years. She pays her rent directly to the respondent and she indicates that the respondent is the signatory to her leases. She indicated that her cooking gas had been interrupted since December 2017. This interruption caused her and her adult son eat most of their meals outside of the home or they were reduced to canned foods that could be warmed through non-gas reliant appliances.1 Respondent indicated that this required her to spend $350.00 per month more for food than she would have had to spend, had she been provided cooking gas. In addition, there was no working smoke or CO2 detector and there are several leaks in the home. Petitioner’s testimony is that respondent became contemptuous of her requests for repairs and indicated he would no longer maintain the properly appropriately. Petitioner indicates this is particularly troublesome as she is a disabled person who has suffered strokes and pneumonia and she is concerned these conditions worsen her health.The respondent opposes the motion by making conclusory statements as to his failure to receive the original Order to Show Cause as well as the instant motion. In addition, respondent contends that petitioner was fully aware that respondent did not live at the addresses listed in his expired registration. This is irrelevant as the requirement to provide an accurate address to the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is provided at MDL §325 and MHC 27-2097.2 Petitioner served the last address provided by respondent and respondent has since renewed his expired registration at the subject premises. The respondent has not pleaded a financial inability to sustain the properly free of violations. Rather, he indicates that the conditions are either currently repaired or they were never in violation of the Housing Maintenance Code. These defenses are not sufficient to warrant a traverse hearing and based upon the facts provided by the parties, the Court finds that service of the Order to Show Cause and the instant motion were proper.A finding of civil contempt requires the petitioner to establish that the respondent violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which they had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to the petitioner’s rights. Additionally, a finding of civil contempt does not require a finding of a contemnor’s willful violation of the underlying order. The mere act of disobedience, regardless of motive, is sufficient to sustain a finding of civil contempt. E1 Dehdan v. E1-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 41 N.E.3d 340, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 2015 N.Y. LEXIS 3474, 2015 NY Slip Op 07579 (N.Y. October 20, 2015).The Court finds that the respondent violated a lawful, clear mandate of this Court, was properly served, and that this violation resulted in prejudice to the petitioner’s rights, in that she suffered violations of the Housing Maintenance Code that impacted her financially and may have negatively impacted her health. The purpose of civil contempt is to redress the right of an aggrieved party. Petitioner has demonstrated that respondent’s failure to provide basic services requires redress.As to the amount to be assessed, the governing law is found at NY CLS Jud sec. 773 which provides for fees and expenses being recoverable. Therefore, the Court finds the respondent in contempt for his contemptuous conduct and imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,400.00, to be paid to the petitioner by February 11, 2019.This is the decision of the Court and copies will be mailed to the attorneys for the parties and made available in the Courtroom.Date: January 15, 2019
