Petitioner commenced this HP proceeding seeking a finding of harassment and an order restraining respondents from harassing her. Petitioner seeks a finding of "unlawful eviction" pursuant to RPAPL 768(2)(b) and the New York City Administrative Code Section 26-523.

The Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) did not appear or take a position on this matter.

The respondents did not appear on the initial court date. On the initial court date, petitioner stated that she was without electricity. The court issued an Order for respondents to restore electricity; petitioner, however, did not want to restore the electrical account in her own name. The case was adjourned for an inquest on petitioner's harassment claim. On the inquest date, respondents did not appear, and the inquest was held on June 9, 2025.

Petitioner was sworn in and testified that she moved into Apartment 2C, located at 410 Marlborough Road, Brooklyn, New York. Petitioner testified that she rents a room in the Apartment, and that the amenities include use of the bathroom, the kitchen, and the living room, electricity, and use of the mailbox. The petition alleges that the Apartment is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. The petition further alleges that Marak Lenko is the tenant of record and that Malgorzata Lenko is the daughter of Marak Lenko. The petition alleges that Artur Kortarba is an agent of Malgorzata Lenko and resides in Apartment 2C.

Petitioner testified that she moved into the Apartment on or about June 15, 2024. Petitioner offered as evidence a receipt for a security deposit of $800.00 and two receipts showing monthly payments of $800.00, for the period of June 15, 2024 to July 15, 2024 and for July 16, 2024 to August 15, 2024. The petition alleges that in December 2024 the electricity to the Apartment was discontinued. Petitioner testified that she was asked to leave. Petitioner alleges that the electrical account was purposely closed by respondents.

Petitioner testified that in December 2024 Kings County Criminal Court issued an Order [*2]of Protection. The document was offered in evidence and provides that it is a Temporary Order of Protection (TOP) against respondent Artur Kortarba; the TOP is effective through June 27, 2025. Petitioner provided an uncertified document regarding a complaint to the NYPD; however, the document is not dispositive.

Petitioner testified about expenses she has incurred since the Apartment has been without electricity. She stated that she must eat out and that she must buy batteries, flashlight, pocket size portable chargers, and water. Petitioner states that she does not drink the water from the kitchen tap because she believes the water has been tampered with by the respondent(s). Petitioner also stated that she does not have access to the mailbox.

The New York City Administrative Code defines harassment as any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) includes one or more of the following acts or omissions, provided that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such acts or omissions were intended to cause such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, except that such presumption shall not apply to such acts or omissions with respect to a private dwelling, as defined in paragraph six of subdivision a of section 27-2004.

Here, petitioner's harassment claim is not against the owner of the property. Respondents are identified as the Rent Stabilized tenant of record, a family member of the tenant of record and an occupant/roommate of the tenant of record or of the family member. These respondents are not the owners of the property. Notwithstanding the describes acts of the respondents which are alleged to have left petitioner without electricity in the apartment, the owner is not the one which disrupted the electrical services. Injunctive relief available pursuant to Housing Maintenance Code Section 27-2120(b) specifically provides for an order restraining "the owner of the property from engaging in harassment." The civil penalties to be imposed upon a finding of harassment as described in Section 27-2115 are against the owner and not a roommate. See, Freckleton v. Akande, 2022 NY Slip Op 50166(U), 74 Misc 3d 1217(A) (Civ Ct Queens Co. 2022); Waldman v. Abt, 2021 NY Slip Op 51220(U), 73 Misc 3d 1232(A) (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2021). These respondents do not exercise control of the building. A finding of harassment shall be a class C immediately hazardous violation with a mandatory penalty against the owner. The owner is not a party to this proceeding and the Code does not permit for a different interpretation. The penalties and injunctive relief sought here are not available in this roommate relationship.

Regarding petitioner's unlawful eviction claim pursuant to RPAPL Section 768, and the remedies available therein, those penalties are available in connection with failure to restore a petitioner to occupancy. Here, petitioner is in possession of the subject premises, albeit without electricity. Respondents have been directed to restore electrical services pursuant to the Decision/Order of April 14, 2025. NYSCEF Doc. No. 8. While Section 768 and Section 27-2004.48 provide common definitions as to what acts may constitutes unlawful eviction and harassment, such as the interruption or discontinuance of essential services, these sections give rise to different remedies as contained in their respective frameworks. At this point, the court has issued an order pursuant to New York Civil Court Act Section 110 directing respondents to [*3]restore electrical services. The monetary damages that arise thereof are not recoverable through an unlawful eviction or this harassment claim. The hearing held on June 9, 2025 was not noticed as a hearing on an unlawful eviction claim, an assessment of civil penalties or contempt of court.

Accordingly, after inquest that part of the petition seeking a finding of harassment, an order restraining harassment, and penalties pursuant to RPAPL Section 768 and New York City Unlawful Eviction Law, codified in 2019 at RPAPL Section 768, are denied and that part of the petition is dismissed.

This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF.

Petitioner is directed to mail a copy of this Decision/Order to each respondent via First Class Mail and file proof thereof to NYSCEF.

Petitioner may retrieve exhibits from the part clerk.

This constitutes the Decision/Order of the court.