Decision and Order The October 22, 2020 Interim Order to Cease and Desist was based upon petitioner’s sworn testimony. The matter was adjourned for respondent to appear. Respondent appeared, retained counsel, and a trial ensued. After the trial, the October 22, 2020 Interim Order is vacated. The petition seeking a finding of harassment is dismissed. The second harassment case filed on or about February 5, 2021, Index No. HP 89/21, is also dismissed. On March 9, 2021, the parties, their counsels, and their witnesses appeared via Microsoft Teams video conference pursuant to the Administrative Orders in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. DHPD did not appear for the trial as it takes no position in this harassment case. The parties and their witnesses were sworn in. Petitioner testified that she lives in the basement apartment at 89-24 172nd Street, Jamaica, NY 11432. Petitioner testified that her boyfriend moved out and now her brother lives with her. Petitioner testified that she had a very friendly relationship with the respondent, and they would socialize. On numerous occasions she would sleep in respondent’s bed or the bedroom of respondent’s daughter. Petitioner met respondent’s immediate family, sibling, and nephews. Respondent’s adult son lives in the house. Respondent’s spouse lived in the house for a short time. Petitioner testified that her relationship with respondent began to deteriorate due to respondent’s jealousy and the desire to control petitioner’s whereabouts. Petitioner testified that “their friendship” became strained after respondent sought “counsel.” Petitioner stated that respondent “cursed” at her many times. Petitioner stated that petitioner is constantly banging on the floor, yelling at her and threatening to hurt her. Petitioner also testified that her mail was held back by the respondent which caused her to miss an appointment. Petitioner testified that respondent “turned-off” the hot water and now she is without hot water. Petitioner stated that she believes that respondent is harassing her. On one occasion, petitioner called the police believing that respondent’s son was being abusive to respondent. The outcome was that petitioner was taken to the hospital for evaluation. Petitioner believes that this was respondent’s plan to discredit petitioner. On cross examination, petitioner acknowledged that she often called the police believing to be doing so for the wellbeing of the respondent, and with the respondent’s permission. Petitioner stated that she wants to relocate. She is suffering from anxiety and depression, and she suffered from said conditions prior to moving into the subject premises. The pandemic has made “it worse.” Petitioner testified that she obtained an Order of Protection against respondent’s nephew. Petitioner acknowledged that respondent’s nephew had health challenges and has since died from COVID-19. On cross examination, petitioner acknowledge receiving a key to her own mailbox which was delivered by respondent’s brother.1 Petitioner stated, however, that the key was not working. On further questioning, petitioner confirmed that there were no witnesses to the alleged conduct. It was undisputed that petitioner’s brother resides with her. Respondent testified that she is the owner of the house. She testified that she did not know about the first court date and only learned about it when she got a copy of the Interim Order. She hired an attorney and came to court. Respondent testified that she did not understand the harassment claim against her. Respondent stated that an eviction case was commenced in September 2020 before the harassment case was filed. They were friendly, then after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared things changed. Respondent asked petitioner not to visit her upstairs because petitioner was not wearing a mask. Respondent testified that before the pandemic, petitioner was welcomed upstairs. Often, petitioner would ask to sleep upstairs alleging that her boyfriend was being abusive. Respondent testified that she did hear fighting and believed that they were drinking every weekend. Respondent stated that she would see empty alcohol bottles in the garbage. Respondent testified that in April 2020 she obtained an order of protection against her own husband. Her husband has been out of the house. At petitioner’s behest, respondent gave petitioner money and her marriage certificate to get a divorce. To date, respondent has not received anything back from the petitioner including her marriage certificate or papers for a divorce. Regarding the mailbox, respondent testified that there are two mailboxes: one for each party. Regarding the hot water, respondent testified that petitioner did not say that she lacked hot water. Respondent denies banging on the floor or yelling at petitioner. She further denies that she curses at petitioner and denies that she gave petitioner permission to call the police on her behalf. Respondent further testified that since she received the Interim Order she stays away from the petitioner. Respondent testified that she has asked her brother to come to the house and do things so that she does not have any contact with the petitioner. Respondent states that she is “scared of petitioner and does not have any conversations” with her. On cross examination respondent explained that she had a friendly relationship with petitioner and gave her access to the upstairs. Petitioner continued to request to sleep upstairs, even after her boyfriend had moved out. In March 2020, however, respondent locked the door to her apartment because petitioner would not wear a mask. Christine Hoodo, respondent’s daughter testified. She testified that she is a certified psychotherapist. Ms. Hoodo lived in the house with her mother when petitioner moved in. Ms. Hoodo now lives a few blocks away and visits her mother a few times a week. She knows the petitioner. Ms. Hoodo testified that she would see petitioner when visiting her mother. Initially she observed a friendly relationship between respondent and the petitioner, including seeing petitioner wearing pajamas in her mother’s home. As time passed, the relationship started to deteriorate. Ms. Hoodo testified that she heard petitioner speaking in a vulgar manner to her mother and she saw petitioner drinking in the yard. Her mother is the caretaker of her brother. On cross-examination Ms. Hoodo acknowledged that her bother may yell and scream but respondent has never expressed that she is afraid of her son. Respondent called her nephew, Rajenbra Dyaran, as a witness. Mr. Dyaran only knows petitioner to the extent that he went to the basement to fix a water leak in the bathroom. After the work was completed petitioner accused him of stealing her brother’s shoes. Mr. Dyaran testified that petitioner started to cry hysterically and said that if she did not find the shoes her brother would beat her up. He told his aunt; he did not go back to do any other jobs. On cross exam, Mr. Dyaran stated that he has his own company. He further stated that petitioner offered to get him more jobs if he fired his helper and hired petitioner’s brother. Respondent’s brother, Jagnanan Vivarb Dhanraj, testified. He helps his sister with the property and sees that she gets the services she needs for her son. Also, since respondent had endured domestic violence, he has acted as a liaison for her. He testified that he showed petitioner another apartment so that she can relocate. Petitioner at first agreed and then said no. He stated that petitioner constantly calls him while he is at work and during the night, screaming at him. Mr. Dhanraj testified that he delivered the mailbox key to the petitioner. On cross examination, Mr. Dhanraj stated that he gave his telephone number to petitioner. He did not know of this case until he saw the Interim Order and then wanted to help keep the peace between the parties. He lives two minutes away and visits daily to check in. He stated that he hears the petitioner screaming from the basement. Regarding the hot water, he could get a plumber. Petitioner was not allowing entry into the basement to address the concern. A finding of harassment may result in the imposition of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. See, NYC Administrative Code 27-2115(o). After considering all the testimony, the Court finds that there is no harassment pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code. The credible testimony of respondent and respondent’s witnesses supports a finding that no harassment has taken place. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed otherwise friendly landlord and tenant relationships under an extraordinary strain. The Court is called to hear and resolve these matters and must make a finding when it is supported by credible evidence. Harassment is broadly defined to include any act or omission by owners intended to cause tenants to vacate their apartments or surrender or waive any rights in relation to their tenancy. It may include the repeated interruption of essential services, repeated failure to correct conditions or acts which substantially interfere with the tenancy. Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence of acts or omissions done by respondent intended to cause petitioner to leave the apartment. On the contrary, the testimony shows that respondent was accommodating and friendly, allowing petitioner to enter her home and even sleep in her home. Once the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, respondent demanded that petitioner wear a mask. This point was not disputed. Respondent made a reasonable demand. Respondent’s demand that a mask be worn was interpreted in a way that was problematic for petitioner. A friendship which turned bitter, and perhaps painful to the petitioner, does not rise to a level to support a finding of harassment. There was no evidence of using force, making threats or other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of the petitioner. NYC Administrative Code §27-2004(a)(48)(a) and §27-2004(a)(48)(g). Petitioner and respondent clearly were friendly. That is no longer the case. The change in the nature of the relationship is not due to any act or omission of the respondent that is prohibited under the harassment law. See, Hucey v. Frezza, 2021 NY Slip Op 50186(U); Santo v. Rose Associates, Inc. 28 Misc. 3d 1225(A) (2010). At the conclusion of the trial, the parties agreed to an access date for the plumber to inspect and repair the hot water condition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is dismissed. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: March 30, 2021
