Dept. Of Housing Preservation & Development (Benjamin H. Pollak, Lauren O'Brien and Melanie T. West of counsel), for appellant. The Law Offices of Scott Gross, P.C. (Scott Gross of counsel), for respondents.

Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Julie Poley, J.), entered March 22, 2022 and from an order of that court (op 75 Misc 3d 483 [2022]) entered June 24, 2022. The order entered March 22, 2022, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of respondents' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action which sought an "[o]rder finding that respondents committed harassment . . . , placing a Class C Immediately Hazardous Violation for such harassment," and awarding a "judgment for civil penalties . . . for each dwelling unit in which a tenant or any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such unit has been the subject of the Class C Immediately Hazardous Violation for harassment," and dismissing the fifth cause of action which sought an order "directing respondents to not engage in any future acts of harassment." The order entered June 24, 2022, insofar as appealed from, upon sua sponte amending the March 22, 2022 order in a non-substantive manner, once again granted the branches of respondents' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered March 22, 2022 is dismissed, as that [*2]order was superseded by the order entered June 24, 2022; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered June 24, 2022, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branches of respondents' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action are denied.

The Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (HPD) commenced this Housing Part (HP) proceeding to enforce the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Housing Maintenance Code, as set forth in Chapter 2 of title 27 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. HPD seeks, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, an "[o]rder finding that respondents committed harassment . . . , placing a Class C Immediately Hazardous Violation for such harassment," and awarding a "judgment for civil penalties . . . for each dwelling unit in which a tenant or any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such unit has been the subject of the Class C Immediately Hazardous Violation for harassment (fourth cause of action), and an order "directing respondents to not engage in any future acts of harassment" (fifth cause of action). The issue presented on this appeal is whether HPD has the authority to maintain these harassment causes of action.

Respondents moved for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action. In an order entered March 22, 2022, insofar as appealed from, upon consolidating for disposition this motion with nearly identical motions in four other HP proceedings, the Civil Court granted the branches of respondents' motion in this proceeding seeking to dismiss the harassment causes of action, finding that HPD did not have standing to bring them. In an order entered June 24, 2022 (Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of NY v Rosenfeld, 75 Misc 3d 483 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2022]), insofar as appealed from, the Civil Court, upon sua sponte amending the March 22, 2022 order in a non-substantive manner, once again granted the branches of respondents' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action.

For the reasons stated in Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of NY v Rosenfeld ( — Misc 3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op — [appeal Nos. 2022-379 K C and 2022-731 K C], decided herewith), the appeal from the order entered March 22, 2022 is dismissed, and the order entered June 24, 2022, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branches of respondents' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action are denied.

HOM, J.P., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur.