DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after consideration of all the testimony and other evidence at trial held on September 6, October 4, and November 18, 2019, the court makes the following findings of fact and reaches the following conclusions of law: Petitioners filed an Order to Show Cause seeking an Order to Correct conditions and to direct the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“DHPD”) to enter a violation of record for Respondents’ (Food First HDFC [owner], New Start Group [registered managing agent], and Rose Laguer [registered individual managing agent]) failure to comply with Housing Maintenance Code (“HMC”) §§27-2053 and 2054. Petitioners’ Order to Show Cause is granted. It is undisputed that 201 Pulaski Street, Brooklyn, New York (“premises”) has nine (9) dwelling units. (See the Registration page on the DHPD website of which this court takes judicial notice.) In such a building, HMC §§27-2053 requires that an owner provide adequate janitorial services by (1) performing the janitorial services himself or herself, if he or she is a resident owner; (2) provide a janitor; or (3) provide for janitorial services to be performed on a 24-hour a day basis in a manner approved by the department. Plus, the owner of such a dwelling, or his or her managing agent on control, shall post and maintain in such a dwelling a legible sign conspicuously displayed, containing the janitor’s name, address and telephone number. HMC §27-2054 requires that the person who performs janitorial services for a multiple dwelling of nine or more dwelling units, unless approved for 24-hour a day service pursuant to HMC §27-2053(b)(3), must live within 200 feet, or one block, of the dwelling. It is undisputed that neither the owners nor its managing agents live within 200 feet or one block of the premises. Petitioners also established that there is no “24-hour a day” janitorial service in that no department approval has even been exhibited. Moreover, petitioners have established that respondents have not addressed complaints within 24 hours of same being reported to the managing agent or service. The petition dated April 29, 2019 alleges that the superintendent or janitor does not live on the premises or within 200 feet or a block thereof, and that respondents have failed to list an address with the phone number for the janitor. Petitioners gave testimony during trial to support these allegations. They also offered photographs of two (2) signs, both showing management’s phone number as (718)230-7706 for both rental information (P2) and identifying itself as managing agent (P1). The address and phone number listed identifies the managing agent, not a janitor or superintendent, and said address is not within 200 feet or a block of the premises. Petitioners offered a Violation Summary Report (“VSR”) from the DHPD website dated 9/5/19 (P4) revealing a list of conditions remaining in the petitioners’ respective apartments from as early as 2005. Petitioners testified on their own behalf, albeit relatively weakly. April Cheeks, tenant at 1B, testified that “Tyrone” does repairs at the building but that she does not have his phone number and instead calls management at (718)230-7706 to report conditions in her apartment. She recalled water leaks in her unit over the last 3 years and a kitchen ceiling collapse on January 27, 2015 at 9:00 p.m. She contacted the service by calling and leaving a message with management’s above telephone number. The condition was addressed the following week, not within 24 hours. She had contacted the service on other occasions to report inadequate heat, which condition was addressed a few days through a week later. Olivia D’ Angelo, tenant at 2B, also testified that she did not have Tyrone’s number. She did not offer any additional testimony of a probative value. Crystal Brown also testified. She has been a tenant at 3A for 9 or 10 years and has management’s phone number for purposes of reporting conditions. She also does not have Tyrone’s phone number. Without providing detail, she testified that she noticed a problem with a leak under her kitchen sink on a weekend. She called the service and it took 2 or 3 days for management to look at the problem and months before it was repaired. She was unable to sufficiently corroborate any other claims of respondents’ failure to timely respond to complaints. Rebecca McCalla testified on her own behalf. She has been residing at 3B for 15 years and is acquainted with “super” Tyrone. She used management’s phone number for complaints. She acknowledged that a receptionist answers calls to that number during business hours and an answering service responds outside business hours. She recalled a flood in her bathroom and living room a few years ago that she reported to the service, resulting in a visit by landlord’s agents a few days later. She testified that the condition was not repaired until a little over a week later. She also testified that the landlord has still not repaired her defective smoke detector even though it has been so for over 2 years. Marcy Garcia testified on her own behalf. She has been a tenant at 4B for 13 years. She corroborated her neighbors’ testimony that she reaches reception when she calls the above management phone number during business hours and an answering service outside business hours. She recounted an occasion when her electricity went out on a Saturday in July 2018. The condition wasn’t repaired until a month after she reported it to the answering service. She also recalled contacting the service on a Sunday a couple of years ago upon hearing a knocking sound in her wall and learning of water infiltration into the apartment under hers. She acknowledged that the landlord responded the next day but also testified that she called the service on an evening during the holidays to report an issue with her stove but same was not repaired for six months. Most recently, she contacted the service early in the morning on her way to work because the entrance door was defective, preventing her from exiting the building. She did not state with certainty the length of time she waited prior to summoning the Fire Department. Laquasia Thomas testified on behalf of the respondents. She has been working with New Start Group for 5 years, handling tenants’ complaints for these and other premises managed by the company. She keeps files for all tenants at the premises and is acquainted with petitioners. She corroborated petitioners’ testimony that management’s phone number is the same for reception and the answering service. Barring the instant proceeding, Thomas never received any complaints from the petitioning tenants about poor response times. Tyrone Madden also testified on behalf of respondents as the supervisor for the premises. He had been the supervisor of 15 buildings for New Start Group for 17 or 18 years. He testified that the answering service at (718)230-7706 dispatches messages to 3 or 4 supervisors and anyone of those supervisors addresses tenants’ complaints. He corroborated Thomas’ testimony that he has never received complaints from tenants at the premises about delays in response times. Testimony of all witnesses begged specificity; notwithstanding the witnesses’ respective infirmities, the evidence supports a conclusion that respondents have violated HMC §§27-2053 and 2054 in failing to provide a janitor either living in, or within 200 feet or a block of, the premises. Respondents have failed to provide proof of department approval for 24-hour a day janitorial service. This court therefore directs DHPD to record a “b” violation for respondents’ violation of those two statutes and respondents are ordered to correct same by February 28, 2020. In the event of a default, petitioners may seek civil penalties and/or contempt as authorized by HMC §27-2115 and/or Judiciary Law, as appropriate. The foregoing constitutes the Decision/Order of this court and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 17, 2019
