[*1]
Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York v Omole
2015 NY Slip Op 50477(U) [47 Misc 3d 134(A)]
Decided on March 26, 2015
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 26, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2012-2578 K C

Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Racheal Omole and JANET FASHAKIM, Landlords-Appellants.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), dated September 14, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of petitioner's motion seeking additional civil penalties for landlords' failure to comply with so much of a consent order as required landlords to repair structural defects in the seventh, eighth and ninth joists in the cellar.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this proceeding by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (HPD) for an order directing landlords to correct violations and


for the imposition of civil penalties, the parties entered into a consent order requiring landlords to correct all of the listed violations by various dates. The order provided that HPD could seek additional civil penalties if landlords defaulted in complying. HPD subsequently moved for such additional penalties, alleging that certain violations had not been timely corrected. The Civil Court granted the branch of HPD's motion seeking additional civil penalties for landlords' failure to comply with so much of the consent order as required landlords to repair structural defects in the seventh, eighth and ninth joists in the cellar, and landlords appeal. We affirm.

The only arguments raised by landlords on appeal are not properly before this court, as they were not raised in the Civil Court (see e.g. Matter of Bichotte v Adolphe, 120 AD3d 674 [2014]). In any event, the contentions lack merit. Contrary to landlords' claims, the attorney's affirmation submitted in support of HPD's motion was in proper form (see CPLR 2106), and HPD did submit sufficient prima facie evidence of the violations (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 328 [3]; see also Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of NY v Knoll, 120 Misc 2d 813 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1983]; Andrew Scherer, Residential Landlord—Tenant Law in New York § 14:43 [2013-2014 ed]). It is noted that, as to the only relevant violation, landlords failed to offer any evidence in rebuttal.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: March 26, 2015