Hibbert v Powell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Hibbert v Powell 2021 NY Slip Op 31862(U) May 19, 2021 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 17578/2020 Judge: Shorab Ibrahim Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 CIVIL CIVIL COURT COURT OF OF NEW YORK OF THE THE CITY CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY COUNTY OF OF BRONX: BRONX: HOUSING PART H HOUSING PART H ---------------------------------x -------------------------------------------------------------x EBONY HIBBERT EBONY HIBBERT H&P H&P Index Index No. 17578/2020 No. 17578/2020 Petitioner-Tenant, Petitioner-Tenant, -- against -against GAYNOR MONIA GAYNOR POWELL, MONIA POWELL POWELL POWELL, NOTICE OF ENTRY NOTICE OF ENTRY Respondent-Landlord, Respondent-Landlord, THE DEPARTMENT THE OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING HOUSING PRESERVATION AND PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (HPD) DEVELOPMENT (HPD) Respondent-City Respondent-City --------------------------------------------------------------x .----------------------------------------------X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that that the the within within is is a true true copy of and of of the the Decision Decision and Order Order of copy the Hon. Hon. Shorab dated the Shorab Ibrahim, dated May 19, and in the the office of of and entered entered in office of the the Clerk Clerk of the the 19, 2021, Ibrahim, 2021, May within named Court on the within named Court on the same same date. date. 2021 Date: Date: May~' , 2021 May New New York New York, New York York, Alberto of counsel Alberto Go to counsel to GoffaÍez,alez, of Tiffany Liston, Esq. Esq. Liston, Tiffany Mobilization for Justice, Inc. Mobilization for Inc. Justice, Attorneys for for Petitioner Petitioner Attorneys 100 William William 100 Street, 66d'th Floor, Street, Floor, New New New York, New York 10038 York 10038 York, Tel. Tel. (212) 417-3886 417-3886 (212) To: : To Department of Housing Department of Preservation and Preservation and Development Development Housing (HPD) (HPD) 100 Gold Gold Street 100 Street NY, NY 10038 NY 10038 NY, Attn: Attn: Emily Veale Veale Emily To: To: & Associates Delroy Murray & Associates Delroy Murray 304 East Lincoln Avenue 304 A venue East Lincoln Mount NY Mount Vernon, NY 10552 10552 Vernon, (718) 547-3403 547-3403 (718) 1 of 14 [*FILED: 2] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 CIVIL COURT COURT OF OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF NEW NEW YORK YORK CIVIL COUNTY COUNTY OF BRONX: OF BRONX: HOUSING HOUSING PART PART H H ----------------------------------------------------------------X -------------------------------------------------X Index No. 17578/2020 Index No. 17578/2020 EBONY HIBBERT, EBONY HIBBERT, Petitioner, Petitioner, DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER -against- -against- AFTER TRIAL AFTER TRIAL GAYNOR GAYNOR POWELL POWELL & MONIA POWELL, POWELL, & MONIA Respondents, Respondents, and and IBRAHIM, J.: J.: IBRAHIM, NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING OF HOUSING PRESERVATION PRESERVATION AND AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT (DHPD), (DHPD), Co-Respondents. Co-Respondents. ----------------------------------------X ----------------------------------------------------------------X After After trial trial held 24, 2021, held on on March March April 2021, April 21, 2021 and 2021 and May judgment shall judgment be shall be 24, 21, 5, 2021, 2021, May 5, entered in petitioner's favor entered in petitioner's pursuant toto the favor pursuant the terms herein. terms herein. THE PARTIES PARTIES AND THE THE CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS Ebony Hibbert, Hibbert, the the petitioner petitioner inin this this proceeding proceeding ("petitioner"), resides at 4239 Digney Digney resides at 4239 ("petitioner"), Ebony A venue, Bronx, NY Main NY 10466, Main Floor Floor ("subject ("subject premises"). Gaynor premises"). Gaynor Powell Powell and Monia and Monia Powell, Avenue, Bronx, 10466, Powell, the respondents in the respondents this proceeding proceeding ("respondents"), in this are the owners are the of the subject house. owners of the subject house. ("respondents"), The The November 2020 petition November 23, petition seeks seeks an an order order to to correct correct violations and a finding violations and of of 23, 2020 finding harassment. harassment. As to As harassment, petitioner alleges, to harassment, petitioner inter inter alia, that that the the respondents violated respondents NYC violated NYC alleges, alia, Admin Code Code§§ 27-2005[d] Admin by causing or to cause her or intending to cause her to vacate the to vacate the subject premises subject by premises 27-2005[d] by causing intending by ((a)a) using using or or threatening threatening force; force; (b) repeatedly stopping or interrupting or essential services; ((c)c) essential (b) repeatedly services; stopping interrupting changing the the lock lock on on the the unit unit door door without without giving giving aa key key to to the the new new lock lock to to the the petitioner; petitioner; ((d)d) changing 9amrepeatedly contacting contacting or or visiting visiting the the tenant tenant without without written written consent consent on on weekends, weekends, outside outside of of 9amrepeatedly 5pm, or in such or in such a manner manner that that would would abuse abuse or harass or harass the the tenant tenant and; e) repeatedly repeatedly causing or or 5pm, and; ( (e) causing permitting acts or acts or omissions that substantially omissions that interfered or interfered or disturbed disturbed the the comfort, peace, or quiet or quiet permitting comfort, substantially peace, tenant.1 1 of the tenant. (see§ of the 27-2004(48)). (see § 27-2004(48)). As to specific As to specific acts acts of of harassment, the petition the petition alleges petitioner was alleges was asked to vacate petitioner asked the to vacate the harassment, premises when when she premises refused she refused to pay pay a rent rent increase to increase and refused and refused toto pay pay a percentage percentage of the utility utility of the bills. Petitioner bills. Petitioner further alleges that as further alleges that as soon soon as as her her lease lease ended, her her lights were cut off for lights were cut off three (3) (3) for three ended, days days in in October October that 2020, that someone someone broke her apartment, broke inin her apartment, and and then then the the landlord landlord changed changed the the 2020, 1 1 Petitioner ""checked Petitioner checked off" off' other other itemss on on the the court's court's pre-printed pre-printed form. form. However, However, they they proved proved not not to to be be relevant. relevant. 1 2 of 14 [*FILED: 3] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 locks while petitioner petitioner was Finally, petitioner alleges that that respondent respondent turned turned off off all all while was at at work. work. petitioner alleges locks Finally, running water toto the the apartment in early November 2020. apartment in November 2020. water early running Respondents' Respondents' December 20, 2020 answer denies denies the claim. The second second December answer harassment The 2020 the harassment claim. 20, acknowledges petitioner's turned off. Respondents Respondents affirmative defense, however, acknowledges petitioner' s water water was was turned off. affirmative however, defense, of a leak odor from because of allegedly emanating from allege that water had had to be turned turned off that the the water to be off because leak and and odor allege emanating allegedly petitioner's apartment. They claim petitioner's refusal to provide access caused her to be be without claim petitioner's refusal to provide access caused her to petitioner's apartment. without They hands" water. The claims petitioner has has "unclean hands" and urges the the court comt toto consider the "unclean consider The answer answer petitioner and urges the water. claims other tenants tenants "as suffer from from petitioner's "the suffer from water water leaking from petitioner's apartment" apartment" and and "the other "as they leaking they inconvenience of of living living inin aa smelly smelly water-soaked water-soaked apartment." apartment." inconvenience THE TRIAL THE TRIAL Hibbert Ebony Hibbert Ebony Petitioner testified as she moved into the subject premises inin September 2019, as follows: into the subject premises September Petitioner testified follows: she moved 2019, 2019.2 2 She resides pursuant resides on on the the main main level. level. The The landlord's landlord's sister sister pursuant toto aa lease dated August August 15, lease dated 15, 2019. She and the sister in law above. [Ingrid] lives below her and the landlord's sister in law lives above. lives below her landlord's lives [Ingrid] technician care technician at the the Albert Albert Einstein twenty-five-year-old (25) patient care at Einstein She She is is a twenty-five-year-old (25) patient student. emergency room and a full-time nursing student. room full-time and emergency nursing The lease lease expired expired on 31, The landlord offered offered a renewal but rescinded rescinded the The on August August 2020. The landlord renewal but the 31, 2020. share of of utility when petitioner did not to a pay aa share utility offer when petitioner did not agree agree to a rent rent increase increase and and did did not not agree agree toto pay charges. charges. offer On 23, she an from the telling her the unit unit On August 2020 she received received an email email from the landlord landlord her to to vacate vacate the August 23, 2020 telling 2020.3 3 and itit was the by August 31, in and the peak peak of the Covid-19 Covid-19 August She was was working, in school, was during of the school, 31, 2020. She working, during by pandemic. She did did not pandemic. She not move. move. sent On September the landlord On September 30, 30, 2020, the landlord sent aa text text message message informing informing her her the the eviction eviction 2020, of wages, reporting to credit agencies, and seeking process would would start, start, including garnishment to credit and garnishment of wages, agencies, including reporting seeking fees. legal legal fees. process for three off for October her electricity 2020, her was shut shut completely off three (3) In the beginning beginning of was In the of October 2020, completely (3) electricity alerted days . She had not lost power before. She alerted Gaynor Powell and her sister, Ingrid, who lives had not lost power before. She Gaynor Powell and her who lives days. She Ingrid, sister, downstairs. They told her a technician technician was was coming. She called the police each the coming. She called the police each day and on on the downstairs. told her They day and basement third day day the the police police gained access toto the the basement and turned turned on on the the lights. lights. access and third gained not charge charge cellphone and had had in the the dark, shower in could not her cellphone and Petitioner testified she had toto shower could her Petitioner testified she had dark, to buy flashlights. flashlights. to buy 5, 2020 After the power was was turned turned back back on, the apartment was burglarized burglarized on apartment on October October After the power was 5, 2020 on, the knocked and three thousand dollars dollars ($3,000) ($3,000) was was stolen.4 stolen. 4 Petitioner Petitioner called called the the police police and on thousand and knocked on three and closed Ingrid's door. Ingrid laughed laughed and the door. door. Ingrid's door. Ingrid closed the and 22 The in evidence evidence [see [see NYSCEF 25]. The lease lease is is in NYSCEF Doc Doc No. No. 25]. 3 3 The email is in evidence is in NYSCEF Doc Doc No. No . 27]. 27]. The email evidence [see [see NYSCEF 4 4 A to gain access access to evidence. A video video showing the alleged alleged burglar burglar attempting to gain to the the premises premises is is in in evidence. showing the atteiiiptiiig 22 3 of 14 [*FILED: 4] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 After the the alleged alleged burglary, burglary, the the landlord landlord left left aa notice notice on on the the front front door door that that she wanted she wanted Premises" apartment 2020 "Notice to Enter Enter 7, 2020 "Notice to Premises" access toto petitioner's apartment toto make make repairs. repairs. The The October October 7, access petitioner's 11 2020 9AM indicates the intends to the on October 11 and landlord intends to access access the apartment apartment on October and 12, 9AM to to 5PM 5PM indicates the landlord 12, 2020 "for the purposes of of inspecting the condition of the and completing selected inspecting the of the premises, premises, identifying and selected "for the purposes condition identifying completing repairs."5 repairs." 5 After There was was nothing nothing wrong wrong inin the the apartment apartment as as of of October October 7, 7, 2020 2020 and and petitioner petitioner had had not not There complained inside the apartment. She work on of any repairs being needed inside the apartment. She had to work on October 11, a of repairs needed had to October complained 11, any being Sunday. Sunday. Petitioner camera after the break-in. was able able to see Gaynor Gaynor Ingrid Petitioner installed installed a camera after the break-in. She She was to see Powell, Ingrid Powell, The male the home front and white male at the entrance. was to drill 's home's front [Powell], and a white male at the entrance. The male was attempting to drill the [Powell], attempting entrance lock. lock. Petitioner left work work and and took a cab cab home. home. She She was was "written "written up" up" for for leaving leaving work. work. took entrance Petitioner left a Petitioner arrived from and saw saw the was missing. She Petitioner called the police. She from work and lock was She called the police. She arrived work the lock missing. came. into her her apartment. The police [the landlord] changed the lock and could not get apartment. The came. They [the landlord] changed the lock and could not get into police They gave key toto petitioner's petitioner's boyfriend.6 boyfriend. 6 gave a key Petitioner the landlord consent Petitioner states states she she did did not not ask ask the landlord toto change change the the lock lock and and did did not not give give consent petitioner in apartment for lock being being changed. By this time, petitioner thought being in the apartment was "messing for the the lock changed. this thought the was time, being "messing By life." up her her life." up Premises" "Notice to dated October the landlord posted second to Enter Enter Premises" dated October 21, Thereafter, the landlord posted a second "Notice 21, Thereafter, to the access October 2020, wherein wherein the the landlord indicates she intends to access the premises premises on 24, 25 landlord indicates she intends on October 25 24, 2020, 2020 31 and November and from 9AM to 8PM. [Saturday and Sunday] and 31 and November 1, 2020 [Saturday and Sunday] from 9AM to 8PM. and and 1, Sunday] [Saturday Sunday] [Saturday there were still no Petitioner stayed home this although there were still no repairs needed inside her Petitioner stayed home this time, although repairs needed inside her time, apartment, as not want want a repeat repeat of what happened on October October 11. Nobody showed up . she did did not happened on up. as she of what 11. Nobody showed apartment, days. She makes calculates she lost around $890 dollars Petitioner calculates she lost around $890 dollars inin wages wages by by not not working working those those days. She makes Petitioner each weekend dollars per and usually twenty-eight dollars ($28) per hour hour and usually works works sixteen sixteen (16) ( 16) hours hours each weekend day. day. twenty-eight ($28) received [a Monday], message from On November 9, 9, 2020 [a Monday], petitioner petitioner received a text text message from Gaynor On November 2020 Gaynor to the the apartment Powell at AM that plumber was to [presumably to the Powell AM advising that a plumber was going apartment to assess assess the at 6:59 6:59 going [presumably advising issue" text].7 7 However, petitioner "very serious plumbing issue" mentioned in a November 8, 2020 text]. November 2020 mentioned in petitioner serious 8, However, "very plumbing she was an on-line on-line midterm exam and access of that that day day because because she was taking an midterm exam and could not give give access most of could not most taking and would be be penalized penalized if she was was not not on on camera. camera. Despite Despite this, petitioner answered, and Ingrid would if she petitioner Ingrid this, answered, issue. When Ingrid Ingrid tried push her her informed her needed access access for for aa plumbing issue. When allegedly tried toto push informed her they they needed plumbing allegedly police. way in, petitioner felt threatened and called the police. petitioner felt threatened and called the in, way After that, that, there was no water [hot or cold] in the the apartment. Petitioner texted the in apartment. Petitioner texted After there was no water [hot or the cold] landlord atat 4:51 PM November 9, that the plumber plumber could access the apartment. The PM on on November that the could access the apartment. The 4:51 2020 9, 2020 via email landlord responded text at 8:51 PM: "As required I notified you and landlord responded by by text at 8:51 PM: "As required by by law, law, I notified you via email and text text problem technician would be by. At this am that there there is a serious plumbing problem and a technician would be coming by. At this point II am that is a serious and a point plumbing coming you after refused to directions provided the police officer that called you following the directions provided by the police officer that you called today, after you refused to the today, by following let the in. II have have already contacted our to on the judge's judge's order. technician in. our lawyer lawyer work on getting the order. II let the technician contacted to work already getting landlord 5 The The October October 7, in evidence evidence [see [see NYSCEF DOC. No. 23]. 2020 Notice Notice is in NYSCEF DOC. No. 23]. 7, 2020 6 Several 6 [Pet Ex. incident. Several videos Ex. L, and OJ in evidence evidence relate relate to N and to this this incident. videos [Pet L, M, M, N O] in 7 7 These DOC No. 19]. These texts texts are in evidence evidence [see [see NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC No . 19]. are in 3 3 4 of 14 [*FILED: 5] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 office."8 8 Petitioner will do nothing, until II get from his office." was only person person in the until get directions directions from his Petitioner was the the only in the will do nothing, building without water. without water. building Petitioner resorted resorted toto purchasing purchasing water to do do things things like the She went to water to like flushing the toilet. toilet. She went to flushing other people's homes, hotels, and to bathrooms. She not and and work use bathrooms. could not cook had to other people's work to use She could cook and had to eat eat out. out. hotels, homes, Even handwashing became difficult without clean rnnning water. She was spending $300 per became difficult without clean water. She was $300 per Even handwashing running spending week on water. Not Not being being able to shower affected her work [at the ER], was belittling and able to affected her work week on water. shower [at the was belittling and she she ER], became depressed; depressed; she she had had no peace at at that time. time . no peace at home at that became home Petitioner Christmas." The water water was was restored "shortly before Christmas." In the the interim, interim, DHPD DHPD and and DOB restored before In DOB [the [the "shortly Department Department of of Buildings] Buildings] inspected inspected the the apartment apartment and and both both agencies agencies placed violations for lack placed violations for lack of of fixtures.9 9 water at the fixtures. water at the The On testified she did did not On cross-examination, cross-examination, petitioner petitioner testified she not receive receive the the November November 9, text 2020 text 9, 2020 wherein the landlord a the apartment, because [6 :59 AM AM text] text] wherein the landlord states a plumber plumber isis coming coming toto the because she [6:59 states she apartment, had blocked the the landlord's landlord ' s texts at that time. time. She tried toto arrange access later later inin the the day She tried arrange had blocked texts at that access after day after speaking to the landlord's sister [Ingrid], when she showed up during her exam. to the sister when she showed her landlord's exam. [Ingrid], speaking up during Petitioner acknowledged door where the lock was changed Petitioner acknowledged that where the was changed led area. that the the door lock led to to a common common area. not her her apartment door. She acknowledged acknowledged she had had changed changed the lock "outside It door. She she the lock to that "outside It was was not apartment to that door" shown landlord's door" before the the events shown inin the videos without the landlord's permission. before events the videos without the permission. Regarding the three days without electricity, petitioner acknowledged she did did not not know know three petitioner the days without acknowledged she electricity, Regarding who caused caused the the outage outage but but reiterated reiterated the the landlord did nothing nothing toto fix fix it.it. The police were were able able toto landlord did The police who on once turn once they they had had access access toto the the basement. basement. turn it it on Azanda Mkhwanazi Mkhwanazi Azanda Ms. testified as she lives lives in the apartment above petitioner. Ingrid Ms. Mckwanazi Mckwanazi testified as follows: follows: she in the apartment above petitioner. Ingrid her two [Powell] is sister in law. Ingrid lives children. Ingrid is her her sister in law. Ingrid lives inin the the basement basement with with her two children. Ingrid manages manages [Powell] around.10 10 Gaynor Powell not around . the property property when when Gaynor Powell isis not the In 2020 her lights lights went off two She that petitioner's petitioner's October her for about about hours. She knew knew In October 2020 went off for two (2) that (2) hours. "controls" lights were off were off because because the the police police came came and and knocked knocked on on her her door. door. She She told told them them the the "controls" lights "controls" were inin the basement. She knew the there because because she had seen seen them and were the basement. She knew the "controls" were were there she had them and had, had, on and and off. on occasion, turned turned them them on off. on occasion, She believed petitioner's petitioner's power power was was restored restored three three (3) days later later because because that that isis what what the the She believed (3) days though police told told her. her. She She did did not lose water water service service atat any any time, time, though she knows petitioner petitioner did did not not lose she knows police not "controls" have any water for over a month. She knows the water "controls" are in the basement; she has water month. the water are in have for over She knows the she has basement; any "knob" seen and there is controls the water] water] to of the house. and believes there is a "knob" [that controls the to each each floor floor seen them them believes [that of the house. On cross-examination, Mckwanazi On Ms. testified she is Gaynor Gaynor Powell's Powell's sister in Ms. Mckwanazi testified she is sister in law, cross-examination, law, though her husband husband moved moved out 2020. though her out in in January 2020. January 88 Id. 9 Subpoenaed 9 of violation Subpoenaed DHPD DHPD and and DOB DOB records records are are in in evidence. evidence. The The DHPD DHPD notices notices of violation issued issued November November 12, 2020. 12, 2020. The DOB inspection inspection was was December 3, violation served December 7, December 7, 2020. 2020. The DOB 2020 with with a violation served December 3, 2020 Authority" 10 In evidence is a "Notice grant Ingrid In evidence of Authority" dated June 29, wherein the the respondents respondents grant Ingrid Powell the "Notice of dated June Powell the 29, 2020, 2020, wherein to ""make make changes to the the property" property" as authorized authorized by them. them . authority to changes to authority by 4 4 5 of 14 [*FILED: 6] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 She the have gone past when multiple appliances were in the lights gone out out in in the when She acknowledged acknowledged lights have the past multiple appliances were in use. the main floor and upper floor. floor. Normally Normally she go to the the electrical used to to occupy main floor she would go to electrical use. She She used the and upper would occupy panel inin the the basement basement and tum the the power power back back on, but that was before Ingrid installed a door. was panel and turn but that before Ingrid installed door. on, Ingrid Powell-Cerease ("Ingrid") Powell-Cerease ("Ingrid") Ingrid Ingrid" 11 Ingrid lived at the subject April testified as she at building since April 2004. Her testified as follows: follows: she has has lived the subject since 2004. Her building mom own the property. She lives in She through a side She sister own She lives the basement. basement. She enters enters through side door. She mom and and sister the property. in the door. front cannot access her through the entrance. access her apartment apartment through the front entrance. cannot The utilities utilities are in the basement, including including the the electrical panel and and water water meters. meters. She has electrical the basement, panel She has are in control how itit works. of them. them. Though Though she has control control of the breaker breaker box, box, she she has has no no idea idea how works. control of she has of the The She became of the the electrical electrical issue in in October October 2020 when the showed She became aware of issue 2020 when the police police showed up. aware up. Gaynor restored She Gaynor Powell who Con-Edison. She the electricity was restored She called called Powell who then then called called Con-Edison. She believes believes the was electricity her about about it. She She denied to cause petitioner to after that because no no one bothered her it. denied doing anything to cause petitioner to after that because one bothered doing anything lose lose power. power. of the the alleged burglary ofof petitioner's petitioner' s apartment apaiiment prior prior to She denied any knowledge of alleged She denied to burglary any knowledge seeing a video video of of the the suspect. suspect. She does does not not know the person in the the video. She know the person in video. seeing On November 6, she Ms. about a foul smell coming into 2020 she called Powell about foul smell into the the basement basement On November called Ms. Powell 6, 2020 coming her apartment, apartment. Petitioner did not give access toto her cursed at her her and the door. apartment. Petitioner did not give access cursed at and slammed slammed the door. apartment, Petitioner called the police. Ingrid told them them about a smell and aa leak leak and the water water about smell and explained Petitioner called the police. Ingrid told a and explained the would need need toto be be turned turned off off ifif access access was was not granted. would not granted. Powell Ingrid introduced a video, wherein an NYPD officer informs Ms. that petitioner Ingrid introduced wherein an NYPD officer informs Ms. Powell that petitioner video, does want any repairs, that a key should be provided [ for the changed lock] and they should be [for the changed and that should provided should does not not want key lock] they any repairs, go toto court go court to get petitioner to get petitioner out. out. a Ingrid acknowledged acknowledged they they turned turned off the solve leak. off the water water toto solve a leak. Eventually, the the landlord landlord Eventually, obtained access and fixed a loose loose toilet toilet and water was turned back back on. access and the water was turned obtained fixed a and the on. Ingrid On Ingrid acknowledged only petitioner uses front acknowledged petitioner On cross-examination, Ingrid uses the the house's house's front cross-examination, only entrance door. She acknowledged she not personally personally tum on the She not door. She acknowledged she did did not turn on the electricity. She did did not entrance electricity. apartment. personally tell petitioner the plumber was going to the apartment. tell petitioner the plumber was to the personally going Jr. Michael Couch Couch Jr. Michael has more of in Mr. Couch Jr. testified as he than years Mr. Couch Jr. testified as follows: follows: he has more than twenty years of experience experience in twenty engineering.12 12 home's electrical engineering. He the home's breaker-box and saw saw it it was He viewed the breaker-box and was a 60-amp system. He electrical He viewed system. 60-amp Amps" that an upgrade "200 apartments. sunnised that the house needs needs an to Amps" because because there there are three (3) apartments. surmised the house upgrade to "200 are three (3) "breaker-box" He that a "breaker-box" will "trip" "trip" toto protect protect against possible fire when there there isis high high that a will against possible fire when He explained explained electric usage. usage. AA layman layman can can flip flip the breaker back, back, but but itit isis better electric the breaker better that that an an electrician electrician do do it.it. On Mr. Couch Jr. he the person person shown in On cross-examination, Mr. Couch acknowledged he was was the shown in videos videos Jr. acknowledged cross-examination, drilling into entrance door. He friend to Gaynor Powell. the front entrance door. close friend Gaynor into the front He is is a close to Powell. drilling H 11 court refers Powell-Cerease her first first name avoid confusion. confusion. The court refers to to Ms. Ms. Powell-Cerease by her name only to avoid The only to by 12 Mr. 12 Mr. Couch Couch Jr. was was qualified expert in in the electrical field. as an expert the electrical field . qualified Jr. 5 5 6 of 14 [*FILED: 7] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 Gaynor Powell Powell Gavnor the property. property. She She confirmed confirmed three three Gaynor Powell testified as as follows: follows: she is an an owner owner of she is Gaynor Powell testified of the authorized (3) spaces are currently occupied. She authorized Ingrid to deal with repairs at the property. spaces are occupied. She Ingrid to deal with repairs at the property. (3) currently Powell testified she tried gain access access to petitioner's apartment in August Ms. testified she to to apartment in 2020 Ms. Powell tried to gain petitioner's August 2020 with an but access, despite giving a four ( 4) day notice. with an electrician electrician but was was not not granted granted despite four notice. access, (4) day giving the changed front door lock, Ms. testified the on had been As toto the changed front door Ms. Powell Powell testified the lock lock on the the door door had been lock, changed without her permission and and a key provided toto her, her, so it her permission not provided changed without so she she replaced replaced it and and key not immediately gave a key to petitioner, with the assistance of the NYPD. gave a to with the assistance of the NYPD. petitioner, key immediately As Powell seen breaking Ms. does not know know the the person person seen breaking into into petitioner's petitioner's apartment. apai1ment. She was Ms. Powell does not She was at the the time. time. in Georgia at in Georgia received On November 2020 Ms. Powell call from from Ingrid [about She On November 7, 7, 2020 Ms. Powell received a phone phone call Ingrid [about a smell]. She smell]. and texted petitioner called a plumber plumber who who had had been been to the property property before before and petitioner about access [first for called to the texted about access [first for 9]. When to November 9]. petitioner did not provide provide access, the November 8, November then changed changed to November When petitioner did not the water water 8, then access, [to petitioner's was turned off. [to petitioner's apartment] was turned off. apartment] Ms. Powell acknowledged that texted her later that her Ms. Powell acknowledged that petitioner petitioner texted her later that day, her she she day, informing informing informed petitioner to go could send the plumber. plumber. However, However, she she informed petitioner they they had had to go toto court because that that is could send the court because is aware that that DHPD DHPD and and DOB DOB served served her her with with what what the the police police officer officer told told her her toto do. do. She She isis aware case.13 violations. DOB, however, dismissed dismissed the violations. the case. 13 DOB, however, On Ms. agreed she a lease offer when Powell agreed she withdrew lease renewal On cross-examination, Ms. Powell withdrew renewal offer when cross-examination, She also also asked asked petitioner vacate the property petitioner not agree agree to pay petitioner did to pay increases. She petitioner to the property by by increases. to vacate did not August 31, 2020. August 2020. 31, "cut" Powell disputed off. Ms. Powell disputed that petitioner' s electricity was ever She that petitioner's was ever "cut" off. She acknowledged acknowledged electricity that petitioner's apartment is accessed through the building' s front door. She acknowledged that only petitioner's apartment is accessed through the front door. She building's acknowledged only door she did did not not inform to changing lock. she inform petitioner petitioner prior prior to changing that that door lock. Ms. housedid Ms. Powell petitioner Ms. Powell was was aware aware that that petitioner did not not want want repairs. repairs. She She understands understands that that aa houserepair." to the electrical electrical system is but that "major repair." wide upgrade but that is wide upgrade to the system is required, is a "major required, As (4) weekend dates referenced in 21, Notice, As to four dates for for access access referenced in her her October October to the the four 2020 21, 2020 (4) weekend Notice, anyone Ms. Powell Powell acknowledged she did did not not send send anyone to petitioner's apartment. On re-direct, Ms. acknowledged she to petitioner's apartment. On Ms. Ms. re-direct, "legal" Powell testified she she did up on those access dates because she chose to go the "legal" Powell did not not show show on those access dates chose testified because she to go the up route. route. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The Law and Its The Law and Its Application Application Code§§ 27-2004(48) defines "harassment", "harassment", inter alia "any act NYC Admin Admin Code defines NYC inter as "any act or or alia, , as 27-2004(48) omission by or on behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully omission or on behalf of an owner that causes or is cause intended to person (i) any by lawfully of a dwelling vacate such dwelling entitled to of unit to such unit or to surrender or any entitled to occupancy unit to vacate unit or to surrender or waive waive occupancy dwelling dwelling any rights in relation to and (ii) includes one or more of the following acts or rights in relation to such such occupancy and includes one or the more of acts or occupancy (ii) following or implied using force force against, or express or implied threats threats that that force will be used used omissions... a. using or making express force will omissions .. . a. be against, making 13 13 Respondent's Respondent' s exhibit exhibit 5 is a copy the OATH Decision. of the OATH Decision. copy of 6 6 7 of 14 [*FILED: 8] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 against, any person lawfully entitled entitled to to occupancy of of such such dwelling unit; b.b. repeated repeated against, unit; occupancy dwelling any person lawfully interruptions or discontinuances of of essential services, or an interruption or discontinuance of an interruptions or discontinuances essential or an interruption or discontinuance of an services, service extended or or of of such such significance significance as to substantially impair the the essential service for for an an extended duration essential duration as to impair substantially of such dwelling unit;b-1 . an interruption or discontinuance of an essential service habitability of such unit;b-1. an interruption or an essential discontinuance of service dwelling habitability that (i) (i) affects affects such such dwelling dwelling unit unit and and (ii) (ii) occurs occurs inin aa building building where where repeated repeated interruptions interruptions or or that discontinuances of of essential essential services services have have occurred; occurred; b-2. b-2. repeated repeated failures to correct hazardous or discontinuances failures to correct hazardous or codeM 14 immediately hazardous violations of of this or or major or hazardous violations of hazardous violations this code major or immediately hazardous of violations immediately immediately the New York York city construction codes, relating to the dwelling unit or the common areas of the construction to the unit or common the New the areas of the codes, relating city dwelling building containing such unit, within within the the time required for corrections; ... g. such dwelling time required for such such corrections;... other g. other unit, containing dwelling building acts or omissions of such such significance significance as to repeated acts or of as to substantially substantially interfere interfere with with or or disturb disturb the the repeated omissions comfort, repose, peace or of any any person person lawfully lawfully entitled entitled to to occupancy occupancy of of such such dwelling dwelling quiet of peace or quiet comfort, repose, such person unit and that cause or are are intended intended to cause cause to vacate vacate such dwelling unit or to unit and that cause or to such person to such unit or to dwelling occupancy..." surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy in relation ... " surrender or waive to such any rights credible Here, the preponderance of the preponderance of the the credible evidence, (see (see 133 133 W 145 145 LLC LLC vv Davis, Davis , 63 63 Misc. Misc. Here, evidence, 1St 3d 158[A], 2019 3657 2019 NY NY Slip Op 50850[U] [App Term, l5' Dept 2019]; 3657 Realty Co. LLC v Dept Co. LLC v 3d 158[A], 2019]; Term, Realty Slip Op 50850[U] [App Jones, 52 respondents 52 AD3d AD3d 272, 859 NYS2d NYS2d 434 434 [1S' [1 st Dept Dept 2008]), 2008]), established established that that respondents harassed harassed Jones, 272, 859 as HMC. defined in the petitioner, as defined in the HMC. petitioner, Despite virtual trial five witnesses and dozens of exhibits, the ftt cts Despite a three-day virtual trial with five and dozens of with witnesses the facts exhibits, three-day clear establishing harassment are clear and not seriously in dispute. The court found petitioner mostly harassment are and not in dispute. The court petitioner found establishing seriously mostly respondents' credible while respondents' witnesses, witnesses, particularly particularly Gaynor while Gaynor Powell, were not. credible were not. Powell, 27of an essential essential service service may may constitute constitute harassment. (HMC §§ 27Deprivation Deprivation of an harassment. (HMC 2004(48)(2)(b); (s ee Garcia vv Adams, Adams, 71 3d at NY Slip Op (see 71 Misc. Misc. 3d 1205[A] at *6, 2021 NY Garcia *6, 2021 2004(48)(2)(b); 1205[A] Slip Op 50283[U] 50283[U] [[Civ Civ Ct, Kings County 2021 ]). Kings 2021]). Ct, County Running water water isis an service. (see Cartegena Carteg ena vv Rhodes Rhodes 22 LLC, LLC, 2020 WL 554359, an essential essential service. (see 2020 WL 554359, Running New NY Department York at *5, 2020 NY Slip Op 30290[U] [Sup Ct, New York County 2020]; Department of Housing at 2020 ; Ct, *5, of Housing County 2020] Slip Op 30290[U] [Sup Preservation & & Development Development of of City City of of New New York Debona, 101 101 AD2d AD2d 875, 875 , 875-876, 875-876, 476 476 York vv Debona, Preservation [2nd NYS2d 1984]). Respondents do not dispute are required provide Dept 1984]). Respondents do not dispute they are required to provide running NYS2d 190 190 [2 nd Dept to they running water to petitioner. water to petitioner. There turned is no no dispute dispute that that respondents respondents turned off all running water water to to petitioner's petitioner' s apartment apartment There is off all running on or about November November 9, 2020 and and did not restore restore it until shortly shortly before before Christmas Christmas on or about did not it until 9, 2020 [[approximately approximately six (6) weeks]. weeks]. Petitioner Petitioner credibly testified that that her her emotional emotional state state and and physical physical six (6) testified credibly well-being were affected. She did not have peace at home; she could not function properly at were did not peace at could function affected. She have she not at home; well-being properly work. work. Respondents, however, argue they had justification justification for actionsthere was was a argue had for their their actions-that that there however, Respondents, they leak and and odor odor emanating from petitioner's apartment apartment and and causing causing damage to the the basement basement leak from petitioner's damage to emanating apartment and petitioner's refusal refusal toto grant access to to her her apartment apartment necessitated necessitated shutting shutting her and that that petitioner's grant access apartment her water off. water off. selfdid not one iota of evidence evidence substantiate to substantiate the Respondents, however, did not produce produce one iota of to the selfhowever, Respondents, of such significance and an odor of such significance that all all serving claim there had been a leak claim there had been leak of such significance and an odor of such significance that serving "hazardous" " B" violations violations are pursuant to to NYC NYC Admin. Admin. Code Code §§ 27-2115(c)(2); and Class Class "C" "C" violations violations are " hazardous" pursuant and 27-2115(c)(2); hazardous" are "immediately Code 27-2115(c)(3). are " immediately hazardous" pursuant pursuant to to NYC NYC Admin. Code §§ 27-2115(c)(3). (Notre Dame Leasing Leasing LLC LLC vv Rosario, Rosario, Admin. (Notre Dame 463 n. n.1l [2004]) 2 NY3d NY3d 459, [2004]). . 459, 463 M 14 Class Class "B" 7 7 8 of 14 [*FILED: 9] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 running water [[only only toto petitioner's petitioner's apartment] apartment] was was shut shut off. Respondents knew knew that that the the Covid-19 water off. Respondents Covid-19 pandemic was was ongoing, ongoing, and that petitioner petitioner worked worked inin the the emergency emergency room room atat aa nearby nearby hospital. hospital. pandemic and that running of the the alleged alleged leak, much less did Respondents did not not produce produce a single single photograph photograph or or video Respondents video of less much leak, apartment."is 15 They did of a "water-soaked "water-soaked apartment." not not produce produce the the plumber who who allegedly identified and did plumber identified and They allegedly resolved the issue. issue. They did not produce any evidence that they paid a plumber to identify and resolved the did not produce evidence that plumber paid to and any They they identify resolve the issue. resolve the issue. of As to suggestion that that petitioner's petitioner's failure failure to to provide provide access access led led to to the the complete loss As to the the suggestion complete loss of of her water, the the court is unconvinced. unconvinced. When respondents first first arrived arrived at premises with with an an her water, court is When respondents at the the premises hours' [alleged] plumber, petitioner petitioner had had been been given, at most, aa few The court credits at most, notice. few hours' notice. The court credits plumber, given, [alleged] petitioner's testimony testimony that that she was taking taking an on-line exam exam and and could could not not provide provide access access on she was an on-line petitioner's on [at that November 9, 2020 [at that time]. time]. Critically, Critically, petitioner petitioner had had not any repairs repairs and there November not requested requested and there 9, 2020 any was no in her that proof submitted submitted that that anything was wrong in her apartment at that time. Later in the day, was no proof was apartment at time. Later in the it day, it wrong anything was petitioner who who told respondent the the plumber plumber could come. was petitioner told respondent could come. respondents' witnesses' even if if this court the petitioner this court credits respondents' witnesses' testimony, the petitioner refused Thus, even credits refused testimony, Thus, plumber [on in access to a plumber [on short notice] when there was nothing wrong in petitioner's petitioner's apartment, access to short when there was apartment, notice] nothing wrong Respondents' but later later offered access to the plumber anyway. Respondents' position that would do access to the plumber anyway. position but offered that they would do they nothing and would deal with the issue in court is entirely unreasonable. would deal with the issue in court is unreasonable. and entirely nothing court The court notes, however, however, that that respondents' respondents' witnesses witnesses were were less less than than credible, credible, as shown as shown notes, claims odor and by their self-serving, entirely unsupported, claims about the alleged odor and leak. their about the alleged leak. self-serving, unsupported, entirely by The Powell referred squatter Gaynor Powell apparently also to petitioner as to hearing Gaynor also referred to petitioner as a squatter to the the OATH OATH apparently hearing burglary.16 16 officer officers the alleged Petitioner Petitioner is is not a squatter. (see officer and NYPD officers investigating the alleged burglary. and NYPD not squatter. (see investigating 1st1 Florgus Realty Realty Corporation vv Reynolds, Reynolds, 187 NYS 188, Term, !5 Dept 1921] ["A Corporation 189 [App Dept ["A Florgus 187 NYS Term, 188, 189 1921] [App who settles or locates legal The original squatter is one one who on land land without without squatter is settles or locates on legal permission. permission. The original occupancy occupancy of the the tenant the landlord, the tenant here here can, under no no principle principle oflaw, of law, be be having been been by by permission permission of landlord, can, under having deemed a squatter."]). squatter."]). deemed respondents evidence Nor did provide any any evidence they had had taken taken the the "legal" "legal" route. route. There There was was no no did respondents provide they written notice notice given given toto petitioner petitioner [regarding access to restore the water], although respondents written access to restore the although respondents water], [regarding "legal" letters" fix non-existent had given given multiple multiple written written "access "access letters" to fix non-existent items previously. The The only "legal" had to items previously. only "90-Day" court was of is notice of notice attached to document the court was made made aware document the aware is the the "90-Day" termination termination attached to respondents' answer. It is respondents' answer. It how respondents intended to access to is unclear unclear how respondents intended to obtain obtain access to the the subject subject premises to water and remove violations violations [placed by DHPD] by serving this notice. restore water and remove [placed premises to restore this notice. by DHPD] by serving Nor of efforts made to access toto Respondents did not offer any testimony or Respondents did not offer or evidence evidence of made to obtain obtain efforts access any testimony premises [so that that they restore the subject premises [so they could restore running running water] water] after November 9, 2020. By that the subject could after November 9, 2020. By that DHPD had inspected the issued violations of of violations dated time, DHPD had inspected the premises and issued violations [ notices premises and [notices violations dated time, November 10, November The class 2020], which which respondents respondents acknowledge acknowledge receiving. receiving. The class "C" "C" violations violations 10, 2020], require repair within twenty-four (24) hours and respondents face daily fines in not restoring within twenty-four and fines in require repair hours respondents face not (24) daily restoring Admin water, (see NYC Admin Code§§ 27-2115(c)(3)), yet did make any after the (see NYC Code yet respondents respondents did not not make the effort after 27-2115(c)(3)), water, any effort DHPD were placed access. DHPD violations were placed toto obtain access. violations obtain is Answer 15 Answer at at par. par. 331.I . 16 See Oath decision 16 and NYPD NYPD records no. no. 60698172]. 60698172]. See Oath decision and records in in evidence evidence (tracking [tracking 8 8 9 of 14 [*FILED: 10] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 Having caused the condition condition [[and and therefore therefore the the violation}, violation], it apparent that respondents caused the it is is apparent that respondents Having did nothing to resolve the immediately hazardous conditions. resolve the hazardous conditions. did nothing to immediately c01Tect hazardous Consequently, the the record record established established respondents' respondents' "repeated "repeated failures failures toto correct hazardous or hazardous violations ... , relating to the dwelling unit ... , within the time required hazardous violations to the unit within the or immediately time required ..., relating ..., dwelling immediately Admin 27-2004(b-2)). (see NYC Admin Code§ for for such such corrections. corrections. (see NYC Code § 27-2004(b-2)). Consequently, Must Petitioner Prove Resoondents' Respondents' Intent? Must Prove Intent? Petitioner 27or acts acts or or omissions, HMC When a tenant tenant or or occupant occupant proves proves aa qualifying qualifying act When act or HMC § omissions, § 27- 2004(48) holds, "that there shall shall be a rebuttable presumption that were "that there be rebuttable presumption that such such acts acts or or omissions were omissions holds, to vacate or to or waive intended to such person person to such dwelling unit unit or to surrender or any rights in intended to cause cause such vacate such dwelling surrender waive in any rights relation except that such presumption relation toto such occupancy, except that such presumption shall shall not not apply apply toto such such acts such occupancy, acts or or omissions with in paragraph of subdivision subdivision aa of of omissions with respect respect toto a private private dwelling, dwelling, as as defined defined in paragraph six six of 27-2004." section section 27-2004." 2004(48) or structure defines a as "any structure designed §§ 27-2004(6), 27-2004(6), inin turn, turn, defines a private private dwelling as building or designed "any dwelling building families." and occupied for residential purposes purposes by by not not more than two two families ." [[emphasis emphasis added]. While more than added). and occupied for residential While are apparently a legal legal one-family one-family home, home, 17 three three (3) (3) distinct distinct units units are the subject building building isis apparently the subject occupied for residential As such, admittedly occupied for residential purposes. As the purposes. the presumption presumption of to harass harass of intent intent to such, admittedly Respondents no credible evidence or testimony to this presumption. attached. Respondents offered no evidence or to rebut this presumption. attached. offered credible rebut testimony Even ifif the the presumption did not the change. essential presumption did not attach, the result result would would not not change. Here, the the essential Even attach, Here, lease and petitioner on service ceased shortly after the lease expired and petitioner stopped paying rent. Based on service ceased after the expired stopped rent. Based paying shortly respondents' respondents' causing the condition and then doing nothing nothing toto correct correct the the court court the condition and then doing the condition, the condition, causing respondents' goal was determines that respondents' goal petitioner vacate the determines that was to to make make petitioner vacate the premises. premises. the court finds that respondents respondents harassed petitioner Consequently, the finds that harassed petitioner by by not not providing providing court Consequently, running water for six weeks. water for six weeks. running of Harassment Harassment Other Allegations of Other Allegations of As allegations in petition, the finds they not rise rise to the level to the level of As to to the other allegations in the the petition, the court court finds do not the other they do defined 27-2004(48). harassment as defined HMC § harassment as by HMC § 27-2004(48). by Respondents' that petitioner Respondents' request request that petitioner pay pay more more rent rent and and share in the the utility utility costs costs cannot cannot share in constitute harassment. harassment. The The parties parties were were clearly clearly negotiating negotiating a new new lease lease term. term. When When those those "threaten" negotiations respondent petitioner with the legal process. This negotiations apparently failed, respondent did "threaten" petitioner with the legal process. This did failed, apparently "threat," of "threat," occurring post lease, with petitioner in arrears, does not fall within the definitions post with not petitioner in does fall within the definitions of lease, arrears, occurring harassment. harassment. constitute the alleged is no respondents of petitioner's petitioner's apartment, apartment, there there is no evidence evidence that that respondents As toto the alleged burglary burglary of participated in pre-knowledge of incident does a finding of or had had any it. This This incident does not support of participated in it it or of it. not supp01i any pre-knowledge finding harassment. harassment. As petitioner The lock also cannot support harassment. There is that The changed changed lock support harassment. There is no no dispute dispute that petitioner also cannot installed installed a new new lock lock on on the the front entrance door. door. She She did did so so without without the the landlord's permission, and a front entrance landlord's and permission, she provide a copy did not not provide of the the key to respondents. respondents. Whatever their respondents had of Whatever their motivation, respondents had she did motivation, copy key to 17 DHPo 17 one-unit building. in evidence evidence reflect DHPD records records in reflect the the premises premises are two story, building. are a two story, one-unit 9 9 10 of 14 [*FILED: 11] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 install their lock was the right to their own own lock. lock. Given Given that that aa key key toto the the newly newly installed installed lock was provided provided right to install an act [[although although itit may may have have taken taken NYPD NYPD intervention], intervention], this this isis not not an of harassment. act of harassment. the power over span presents a closer call, where these other The loss of of electric power over a three-day span presents closer where these other The loss electric call, three-day not. the court Ms. Mkhwanazi's shut-off] do not. However, the court credits Ms. Mkhwanazi' s and and incidents [[outside outside of incidents of the the water water do credits However, shut-offj Mr. Couch Jr. Jr.'s' s testimony. testimony. Mr. Couch no indication indication that that respondents respondents caused caused the the breaker-box breaker-box to While Ingrid's There isis no to trip trip. . While Ingrid's the power herself she was power back back on is problematic since she put in hesitancy to to to attempt attempt to tum turn the on herself is problematic since was put in charge charge hesitancy that or issues , it or maintenance maintenance believable. It also Ms. Mkhwanazi lost power for is believable. It is also troubling that Ms. Mkhwanazi lost power for it is is issues, troubling three two hours, while petitioner went went without without for (3) However, this this issue issue has has not not repeated repeated two while petitioner for three days. . However, hours, (3) days since. In any any event, event, petitioner petitioner did not testify testify that these events events caused her toto want want toto vacate the did not that these caused her vacate the since. In premises or the same as the lack of that itit affected affected her her inin nearly nearly the same way way as the complete complete lack of running running water water did. did. premises or that There court the allegations weekend visits (see ofrepeated weekend visits toto the the apartment, (see The notes that The court notes that the allegations of repeated apartment, there HMC 27-2004(48)(f-4), are are not not made in the petition and no motion made toto amend made in the petition and there was was no motion made amend HMC § § 27-2004(48)(f-4), the petition. In event, respondent did not actually visit the apartment pursuant to the October visit the October the petition. In any respondent did not apartment pursuant to the any event, actually 21 , 2020 Notice. Notice. 21, 2020 Penalties Penalties 27court finds have engaged engaged in harassment as defined HMC § The finds that respondents have in harassment as defined by by HMC The court that respondents § 272004(48)(b) and as discussed supra. and (b-2) as discussed supra. (b-2) 2004(48)(b) of harassment, harassment, tenants tenants may may seek seek an order from from aa court restraining an an Upon aa finding finding of an order court restraining court is mandated to impose civil not less owner in such such conduct. penalties of not owner from from engaging engaging in conduct. The The court is mandated to impose civil penalties of less than $2,000.00 and than (NYC Admin Code§ 27-2115 (m)(2); see 351-359 than and not than $10,000.00 (NYC Admin Code 27-2115 see 351-359 $2,000.00 not more more $10,000.00 (m)(2); § East Street Tenants Assoc. 163 LLC, 70 Misc. 3d 1212[A], 2021 NY Tenants Assoc. vv East East 163 LLC, 70 Misc. 3d *8, NY Slip Slip Op East 163rd 163 rd Street 1212[A], *8, 2021 Op v 2 WL 50055[U} [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2021] ; Cartagena v Rhodes 2 Cartagena Rhodes 2020 554359 at [Civ Bronx LLC, 2020 WL 554359 at *5, LLC, *5, Ct, 2021]; 50055[U} County York 2020 NY NY Slip Slip Op 30290[U] [Sup Ct, New York County 2020]) 2020 Ct, New County 2020]) Op 30290[U] [Sup Upon actions the record record establishes and/or omissions respondents. Here, the establishes egregious actions and/or omissions by respondents. As egregious As such, such, Here, by York ,000.00 payable payable to the New New York City Commissioner of are civil penalties of civil of $3 $3,000.00 to the Commissioner of Finance Finance are penalties City 3d 1037, (see ABJ Misc. 86 [Civ (see ABJ Milano Milano vv Howell, Howell, 61 61 Misc. 3d 1042, 86 NYS3d NYS3d 389 389 [Civ Ct, New appropriate. appropriate. 1042, 1037, Ct, New supported York County County 2018]). 2018]). This assessment the record. The failure to provide York assessment is is supported by by the record. The failure to provide running running This water for for six weeks during during the the Covid-19 Covid-19 pandemic pandemic cannot cannot be be sanctioned sanctioned by by the the court. court. The record water six weeks The record respondents' leaves no doubt that and omissions have interfered with and that respondents ' actions have substantially interfered and leaves no doubt actions and omissions with substantially and quiet. disturbed petitioner's comfort, repose, peace and disturbed petitioner's peace quiet. repose, comfort, 27Hibbert is As damages, Ms. is awarded $1,000.00 pursuant toto HMC Ms. Hibbert awarded $1,000.00 pursuant HMC § As to to compensatory damages, § 27compensatory 24"' th were Allen vv 219 219 24 Street Street LLC, LLC, supra supra at citing 2115(0). No No actual actual damages damages were proven. (see 2115(o). proven. (see Allen at *20, *20, citing E.J. Brooks Brooks Company Company vv Cambridge Cambridge Security Security Seals, E.J. 31 NY3d 80 NYS3d 162 31 NY3d 441, 80 NYS3d 162 [2018]). [2018]). Seals, 441, that HMC of As toto punitive punitive damages, the notes that 27-2115(0) leaves an the court notes HMC § leaves an award As court award of damages, § 27-2115(o) discretion. The purpose of assessing punitive damages to the the court' The purpose of punitive damages is toto damages to court's s sole sole discretion. punitive damages is assessing others deter in similar (Smart punish the the individual individual wrongdoer wrongdoer and and toto deter others from from engaging in similar conduct. (Smart punish conduct. engaging 21004 at 2021 NY *8 [Civ Queens Coffee, Inc. Inc. vv Sprauer, 2021 NY Slip Op 21004 at *8 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2021] citing Coffee, Ct, Sprauer, County Slip Op 2021] citing Walker Sheldon,10 ,10 NY2d 491 [1961]). [1961]). Walker vv Sheldon NY2d 401,405,223 NYS2d 488, 488,491 Punitive damages have been Punitive damages have been 401, 405, 223 NYS2d 163rdrd awarded when a landlord has to to code standards. awarded when landlord failed to adhere adhere to housing code standards. 351-359 (see 351-359 East 163 has failed (see East housing 3d 1212[A], Assoc. 163 LLC, Misc. Minjak 140 Street Tenants Assoc. vv East East 163 LLC, 70 3d *8, Minjakvv Randolph, Randolph, 140 Street Tenants 70 Misc. *8, citing 1212[A], citing punitive 10 10 11 of 14 [*FILED: 12] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 [ISt AD2d 245,249, NYS2d 554 1988] ["With respect to strict housing code 528 NYS2d 554 [l5 1 Dept ["With respect to this this State's strict AD2d Dept State's code 245, 249, 528 1988] housing standards and made enforceable through civil and criminal sanctions and other statutory through and statutes, made enforceable civil and criminal and other standards sanctions statutes, statutory is within within the the public public interest interest toto deter deter conduct conduct which which undermines those those standards when remedies, it it is undermines standards when remedies, of high moral culpability or indifference to a landlord's civil that conduct conduct rises rises to the level level to the of high moral or indifference to a landlord's civil that culpability obligations."];; Kingsborough Kings borough Realty Realty Corp Corp vv Goldbetter, Goldbetter, 81 Misc. 81 Misc. 2d 1054, 1058, 367 NYS2d NYS2d 2d 367 1054, 1058, obligations."] 916 [Civ Ct, New York County 1975]). New York 1975]). 916 [Civ Ct, County respondents' 24"' th damages are appropriate appropriate given (see Allen Here, punitive damages are given respondents' conduct, (see Allen vv 219 219 24 punitive Here, conduct, Street LLC, LLC, supra supra at *21 ), and and its on petitioner's life. at *21), its effect effect on petitioner's life. Street punitive damages, damages, they they should bear some reasonable relation to the As the amount amount of to the bear As to of punitive should some reasonable relation to the of the the conduct conduct causing causing it. it. The The record record establishes the the respondents respondents cut cut harm done done and and the the flagrancy flagrancy of harm establishes for running water to petitioner's apartment and did not restore it for six (6) weeks. Respondents did water to petitioner's apartment and did not restore it six Respondents did (6) weeks. running this was legitimately taken or not any this drastic action was taken or that they undertook to not provide provide evidence drastic action that undertook to any evidence legitimately they correct the in a timely timely manner. For these reasons, the court awards Ms. Hibbert condition in manner. For these the court Ms. correct the condition awards Hibbert reasons, $3,000.00 as punitive $3,000.00 as punitive damages. damages. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION Based on the the foregoing, it is is Based on it foregoing, "C" class "C" violation for harassment harassment is at the the subject subject premises violation for is placed placed at premises ORDERED, a class ORDERED, and itit is by DHPD; DHPD; and is fmther further by that ORDERED, that respondents respondents are are enjoined enjoined from from engaging engaging in any harassing harassing in any ORDERED, 27defined Admin. Code§§ 27-2005(d) and in NYC Admin. Code§ conduct prohibited by by NYC NYC Admin. and defined in NYC Admin. Code conduct prohibited Code 27-2005(d) § 272004(a)(48), and and it it is is further further 2004(a)(48), that DHPD awarded final judgment of $3,000.00, is a final judgment inin the the amount amount of $3,000.00, ORDERED, that DHPD is awarded ORDERED, lien which may be enforced as a lien against Block 5005, Lot 20, in the borough of the Bronx, NY; which be enforced as a against Block Lot in the borough of the 5005, 20, Bronx, NY; may further and and itit isis further that the Court awards in apartment apartment main ORDERED, that the Court awards Ebony Hibbert, residing in main Hibbert, ORDERED, Ebony residing apt. 1 l ], judgment against total of floor [a/k/a apt. a judgment against respondents, jointly and severally, in the total amount floor [a/k/a and in the amount of ], respondents, severally, jointly $4,000.00. $4,000.00. constitutes the Decision and Order of the the court. court. The court will The court will email email copies copies toto This constitutes the Decision and Order of 18 counsel. This counsel.i8 Dated: May 2021 Dated: 19, 2021 May 19, SO SO ORDERED, ORDERED, NY Bronx, NY Bronx, /S/ /S/ SHORAB IBRAHIM, JHC SHORAB JHC IBRAHIM, 18 As 18 As petitioner repairs currently needed at the the subject subject premises, the court court does does not not issue petitioner did did not not identify any currently needed premises, the issue an any repairs identify correct as requested cause commencing order to to correct requested in in the order to to show show cause this the order this proceeding. proceeding. order commencing 11 11 12 of 14 [*FILED: 13] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 To: To: Alberto Alberto Gonzalez, Esq. Esq. Gonzalez, MFJ MFJ Legal Legal Attorneys for Attorneys for Respondents Respondents Email: Email: agonzalez@mfjlegal.org agonzalez@mfjlegal.org & & Delmy Murray, Esq. Esq. Murray, Delroy for Respondents Attorney for Respondents Attorney Email: : delroymurraypllc@gmail.com Email delroymurraypllc@gmail.com & & DHPD DHPD Attn: Mirta Attn: Mirta Yumet-Thomas, Esq, Yurnet-Thomas, Esq, Email: Email: Yurnetm@hpd.nyc.gov Yurnetm@hpd.nyc.gov cc: Emily Esq. cc: Veale, Esq. Veale, Emily Email: Email: VealeE@hpd.nyc.gov VealeE@hpd.nyc.gov 12 12 13 of 14 [*FILED: 14] BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 05/20/2021 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 INDEX NO. LT-017578-20/BX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2021 INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 17578/2020 17578/2020 =======N ,40TICE 'OTICEOFENTRY= OFENTRY = = = = = = PLEASE take notice that that the the within within is is a (certified) take notice PLEASE (certified) true copy of a(n) true a(n) copy of duly entered in of the the clerk the within within the office office of in the clerk of of the duly entered named court , 2020 2020 court on named on CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK YORK CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW COUNTY OF OF BRONX: BRONX: HOUSING HOUSING PART PART H H COUNTY EBONY HIBBERT EBONY HIBBERT Dated, Dated, Petitioner, Petitioner, Yours, etc., Yours, etc., -against-against- Attorney for for Attorney Office and and Post Office Address Address Office Post Office FOR JUSTI CE, INC. MOBILIZATION FOR INC. MOBILIZATION JUSTICE, 100 Street, William 6th Floor Floor 100 William Street, 6th New York, New 10038 NY 10038 York, NY GAYNOR POWELL, MONIA MONIA POWELL GAYNOR POWELL, POWELL Respondent, Respondent, To To Attomey(s) for NOTICE NOTICE OF OF ENTRY ENTRY =======N ,WOTICE 'OTICE OF SETTLEMENT·= = = = = = OFSETTLEMEN take that an order PLEASE take notice notice that order PLEASE of counsel Alberto Alberto Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Esq., Esq. , of counsel to TIFFANY TIFFANY LISTON , Esq. Esq. LISTON, of which the the within within is is a true true copy will be be presented presented for for of which copy will settlement settlement to to the the Hon. Hon. Office Office and and Post Post Office Office Address Address MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC. MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC. Floor 100 Street, William 6th Floor 100 William Street, 6th New York, NY 10038 New 10038 York, NY of the the within named Court, the judges judges of one one of of the within named Court, at (212) 417-3700 417-3700 (212) 2021 2021 on 011 at at To: To: Dated, Dated, Yours, etc. , Yours, etc., Service of of a copy within Service the within of the copy of is hereby admitted Dated, Dated, Attorney for for Attorney Office and and Post Office Address Office Post Office Address MOBILIZATION FOR FOR JUSTICE, JUSTICE, INC. INC. MOBILIZATION I 00 William William Street, Street, 6th 6th Floor Floor 100 New York, York, NY New 10038 NY 10038 " """" Attomey(s) for for Attorney(s) To To Attomey(s) for for Attorney(s) 14 of 14 "

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.