Birrenbach v Goldman

[*1] Birrenbach v Goldman 2005 NY Slip Op 51918(U) [10 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on November 23, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 23, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: NOVEMBER 23, 2005 November 2004 Term McCooe, J.P., Davis, Gangel-Jacob, JJ.


Cleo Birrenbach and Thomas Birrenbach,NY County Clerk's No. 570478/04 Petitioners-Tenants-Respondents, Calendar No. 04-322/323

against

Lillian Goldman, Solil Management, Inc., Plaza Enterprises and Estate of Sol Goldman, Respondents-Landlords-Appellants, Department of Housing Preservation and Development of The City of New York, Respondents-Respondents.

Landlords appeal from (1) a judgment of Civil Court, New York County (Margaret Parisi McGowan), entered

December 189, 2001 after a hearing, which awarded respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development civil penalties in the amount of $48,750, plus interest and (2) an order of the same court and Judge, dated June 4, 2003, which
in effect, denied landlords' motion to set aside the aforesaid judgment.
PER CURIAM:

Judgment entered December 18, 2001 and order dated June 4, 2003 (Margaret Parisi McGowan, J.) affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs.

The hearing evidence, including the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence offered by the petitioning tenants, firmly established the landlords' failure to remedy what the court reasonably found to be the "utterly deplorable conditions" in the apartment premises or to correct the long standing class C violations as required by the governing consent order. To the extent the court found that the "progress of repairs" was impeded "at times" by the tenants' conduct in videotaping the landlords' workers, we agree that any resultant restriction of access [*2]bears only upon the amount of the civil penalty award and provides no basis to exonerate landlords of liability for civil penalties otherwise warranted (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y., §27-2116 [b][2][i]).

We have considered and rejected landlords' remaining argument.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: November 23, 2005