DECISION/ORDERBackground Petitioner commenced the underlying holdover proceeding on the ground that Maria Yozmin Diaz (“respondent”) refused to sign a lease renewal for the subject premises. Respondent moved for leave to file an answer with a counterclaim and for summary judgment. The counterclaim alleged that petitioner engaged in harassment in violation of section 27-2005(d) of the New York City Administrative Code. Petitioner’s attorney then moved by order to show cause to be relieved as counsel alleging that he and his client could not agree on how to move forward with the litigation. By order dated March 7, 2018, the Court granted the motion and order to show cause and set the matter down for trial on the counterclaims. Petitioner failed to appear on the return date and the Court conducted an inquest.The following constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusion of law after the inquest.InquestRespondent introduced the apartment’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) registration, her original lease, a renewal lease and a copy of the renewal she received from DHCR. Respondent testified that she signed the renewal lease and sent it to petitioner before this case was commenced. She also asked the Court to take judicial notice of L&T Index #’s 76774/16 and 54060/18.DiscussionSection 27-2005(d) of the New York City Administrative Code provides that “[t]he owner of a dwelling shall not harass any tenants or persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling”. Section 27-2004 of the Code defines harassment as “any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy” and includes “commencing repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings against any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit.” Upon a finding of harassment the statute requires the court to “impose a civil penalty in an amount not less than two thousand dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars.” NYC Admin. Code §27-2115(m)(2).Respondent argues that petitioner violated the Code by subjecting her to three baseless summary commencing proceedings. The documentary evidence introduced by respondent substantiates this claim. Petitioner commenced the case at bar on or about July 21, 2017 however, the renewal lease on file with DHCR indicates that it was signed by respondent on June 15, 2017 and countersigned by petitioner’s agent on June 22, 2017. In addition, the case filed under Index No. 76774/16 is a month-to-month holdover proceeding brought by petitioner against respondent in November 2016. On January 18, 2017 the Hon. J. Lansden granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the case. In so doing, Judge Lansden noted that while respondent introduced proof that the apartment was subject to rent stabilization through 2012, petitioner provided no explanation why this was no longer the case. Finally, L&T Index No. 54060/18 was commenced in February 2018 while the instant proceeding was pending. In that case petitioner sought rent arrears allegedly due for January 2017, February 2017 and February 2018 at $1,115.16 per month. The case was dismissed on February 27, 2018 because petitioner failed to appear. As in that case, petitioner has not appeared to defend itself against respondent’s harassment claim.ConclusionBased on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner violated Housing Maintenance Code §27-2005(d) by commencing baseless proceedings calculated to cause respondent to vacate the subject apartment. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that petitioner restrain from any further violation of §27-2005(d) and ensure that no further violation occurs. It is further ordered, that a civil penalty in the amount of two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars is imposed against the petitioner pursuant to §27-2115(m)(2) on respondent’s counterclaim. Petitioner shall notify HPD of the violation withing five days of service of this order with notice of entry.This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.Date: May 4, 2018Queens, New York
