Ferguson v. Poonam Apts. LLC

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of these Motions:Papers: NumberedPetitioner’s Order to Show Cause for Civil Penalties and to Enforce Order to Correct       1Respondent’s Order to Show Cause to Intervene and to Vacate Stipulations dated 11/12/15 and 5/5/16           2Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Costs and Sanctions            3Respondent’s Cross-Motion to Vacate Stipulations dated 10/15/15, 11/12/15, 2/18/16, and 5/5/16    4DECISION/ORDER

*1 Petitioners¹ commenced this case seeking an Order to Correct various conditions in their respective apartments and public areas at 140-180 Park Hill Avenue, Staten Island, New York (“Premises”). Department of Housing and Urban Development (“DHPD”) issued violations against Respondents for breach of the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§27-2005, 2007, 2018, 2013, and 2042 as well as §26-1103. The case has been protracted by virtue of issues surrounding correction of violations written for failure to properly repair the broken or defective locking device at the entrance door to the buildings at issue. To wit, this condition is still uncorrected and substantially provides the basis of the above motions.After an adjournment on October 15, 2015, at which time Respondents, by counsel, agreed to “endeavor to replace the locks to the front doors”² and otherwise repair HPD violations by October 27, 2015, parties entered into a Consent Order on November 12, 2015 wherein Respondents agreed to repair the violations on the October 9, 2015 reports as well as to provide essential services to the Premises. The parties entered another Stipulation on November 12, 2015 wherein the parties acknowledged that outstanding violations existed for various conditions that did not include the defective lobby door locks.No activity occurred in the case until Petitioner filed an Order to Show Cause on February 2, 2016 seeking to enforce the Order to Correct, to enter a judgment for civil penalties due to Respondents’ alleged failure to correct the violations, and counsel fees. Petitioners, by counsel, alleged in the Affirmation in Support that the locks were never installed at the