NYSCEF Doc. No. 1-12

Petitioner commenced this HP proceeding in March 2025 alleging no heat and other conditions. On the first court appearance, March 31, 2025, Respondent appeared by counsel. Petitioner stated that since February 22, 2025 there had been no heat and electricity was turned off since the filing of this case. Petitioner stated he had lived in the subject premises since 2023. After conference a Decision/Order was issued directing Respondent to restore electricity and heat to the subject premises, and that the proceeding would address the harassment claim orally articulated by the Petitioner. The matter was adjourned to May 6, 2025 for settlement or trial.

On May 6, 2025, Petitioner stated that HPD issued a vacate order, that the Red Cross provided temporary shelter, that all his belongings were still inside the subject premises and that he was informed in the presence of the Respondent that he could return to retrieve his belongings. He said that he took the bare necessities since he was informed that he was going to be placed in a hotel and then in a shelter. Respondent did not appear in court. The Court issued a Decision/Order granting Petitioner limited access to gather belongings, and adjourned to May 29, 2025 for the harassment claim.

On May 21, 2025 Petitioner filed an Order to Show Cause to hold Respondent in contempt of court to be heard on the May 29, 2025. Petitioner established service by mail for the civil contempt to move forward. On the court date, the case was adjourned to June 3, 2025, then to June 26, 2025. On June 26, 2025 it was adjourned to June 30, 2025, and pursuant to a "so ordered" stipulation Petitioner was to have access on June 27, 2025 to retrieve his belongings.

On June 30, 2025, Petitioner stated that he was not given access per the stipulation. The Order to Show Cause to hold Respondent in civil contempt was granted. The hearing on the civil contempt and harassment claim was scheduled for August 13, 2025. The Decision/Order called for Respondent to appear in court and the parties to have all their evidence, proof, and witnesses.

On August 13, 2025 both parties appeared for the hearing and were sworn in. Respondent was represented by counsel. During Petitioner's direct testimony, counsel made an oral application to have the case dismissed since HPD had issued a vacate order. The application was denied, and reference made to the numerous Decision/Orders reciting that Petitioner's claim for harassment was interposed. Furthermore, the hearing on civil contempt was addressed in the Decision/Order of July 30, 2025.

Petitioner testified to his tenancy in the subject premises since March 1, 2023. Petitioner credibly established that he paid to Respondent $1,550.00 per month and a separate amount for electricity in the amount that Respondent would request for him to pay. Petitioner established that he filed this case when his heat was shut-off. Petitioner called HPD to complain about the lack of heat in the dead of winter and then learned that the subject premises were not legalized to be a lawful private dwelling. Petitioner established that on March 2, 2025 the HPD inspector found that there was "no heat" in the subject premises. As a result of Petitioner's call to HPD, and the subsequent inspection, the agency issued a vacate order on March 24, 2025 with an enforcement date of April 4, 2025.

Petitioner credibly testified that when HPD arrived to effectuate the vacate order, and the Red Cross was there, it was stated in the presence of Respondent that Petitioner could return to retrieve his personal belongings. Petitioner credibly testified that in the apartment he had his new cooling-memory foam bed, all his work and personal clothes, documents, pictures and personal items of his deceased grandmother, two flat-screen televisions, all his kitchen utensils, cooking and eating ware, all the food in the refrigerator that spoiled when Respondent shut-off the electricity, and all the personal items he had gathered and purchased during his tenancy.

Petitioner testified that after the vacate order was issued, and before it was executed, Respondent would call the police every day and accuse Petitioner of being a squatter. The police were then shown the proof of rent payments and the order from HPD which allowed Petitioner to be in the apartment through April 4, 2025. Petitioner testified that while he was still living there, Respondent still would not restore the heat and electricity.

Petitioner credibly established that on March 26, 2025, Respondent had someone place a board to block the entrance to the apartment while Petitioner was out. The police were called, the board was removed, Petitioner reentered the apartment, and the electricity was shut-off. Petitioner showed a notice that was later placed on the door to the subject premises from Con Edison. The document marked in evidence stated that Con Edison would discontinue services as of April 12, 2025 because the "landlord had not paid outstanding charges for this building." The notice names the landlord as Amadou S. Diof. Petitioner, however, was without electricity before the Con Edison notice, which stated a date after the vacate order. Petitioner's document established that Con Edison was not the entity that shut-off the electricity on March 26, 2025.

After Petitioner was vacated and placed in a hotel and then a shelter, Petitioner testified that he tried to reach Respondent every day to arrange a time to gather his belongings. Respondent did not respond and did not give access.

Respondent was allowed to cross-examine Petitioner. No questions were presented.

Respondent testified that he is the owner of the property since 2016. He acknowledged that Petitioner paid him rent and said that it was $1,600.00 per month. The last time the rent was received was in November 2024. Respondent is aware of the vacate order from HPD and was present when it was effectuated. Respondent testified that he had a new lock for the door as instructed by HPD.

Respondent testified that Petitioner took all his belongings out of the apartment before April 1, 2025. He also stated that Petitioner was taking his things our every day. He further stated that on April 4, 2025, when HPD was at the apartment, "they made him take all hist belongings outside." Respondent said he took photos of the place on April 4, 2025. The photos were not presented. The only photo that was offered was not entered in evidence.

Respondent then stated that Petitioner's belongings, or some of them, were still, inside the apartment. No further direct testimony was offered by Respondent.

On cross-examination, Respondent was asked the date and time he took the picture. Respondent did not answer this question. Petitioner asked Respondent why Respondent did not respond or answer to his text messages and/or calls from Petitioner from April 6 through June 27, when Petitioner wanted to gather his belongings. Respondent offered that he did not answer the calls or respond to the text messages because Petitioner was "violent." Respondent was asked to explain why he did not show up to give access on the court ordered dates. No explanation was offered, other than Respondent did not want to have any contact with the Petitioner.

Respondent was questioned as to why the Con Edison bill was not being paid when Petitioner was paying for a part of electric bill, as demanded by Respondent. Respondent was asked to look at a text message from Petitioner regarding a payment for electricity via Zelle. Respondent answered that he did not remember.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the Court issued a Decision/Order requiring Respondent to give Petitioner access on August 18, 2025 at 3:00 pm for Petitioner to remove his belongings. Upon failure to give access, Petitioner may restore this case to court.

The Court finds Petitioner credible. Petitioner, deeply frustrated in his attempts to regain his personal belongings, demonstrated calmness and control over the repeated lack of accountability demonstrated by Respondent.

Respondent placed his own credibility in issue with his steadfast argument and testimony that Petitioner had taken all his belongings out of the apartment when HPD effectuated the vacate order. Repeatedly, the Court was told that there was nothing in the apartment for Petitioner to recover because he had taken it all.

The testimony and evidence presented support a finding of civil contempt and harassment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent.

The testimony established civil contempt of the March 31, 2025 and May 6, 2025 Decision/Orders, and the June 26, 2026 "so ordered" Stipulation, regarding restoring essential services and access to retrieve personal belongings. In each instance, civil contempt has been established. The purpose of civil contempt is to compensate the injured private party. See, El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19 (2015).

Petitioner's testimony established that before HPD's vacate order was effectuated, he was without heat for 32 days and without electricity and light for 10 days. It was established that the electrical services were not cut-off by Con Edison, but by the acts of the Respondent-owner. The March 31, 2025 Decision/Order was clear and unequivocal and directed Respondent to restore these essential services. Respondent having appeared by counsel was on notice of said order yet continued to defy the court's order. The evidence has established that Con Edison had nothing to do with the lack of electricity in the apartment or the lack of heat. Respondent also continued to disregard the orders directing access, as per the May 6, 2025 Decision/Order and the June 26, 2025 "so ordered" Stipulation. The orders, both clear and unequivocal, were completely disregarded to the detriment of the Petitioner. The court imposes a civil penalty under Judiciary Law Section 753, of $250.00, for each disobedience of the Orders referenced above, failure to restore the electricity and heat, are two counts of disobedience to the specific March 31, 2025 directive; failure to give access are two counts of disobedience to the May 6, 2025 and June 26, 2025 orders. This totals 4 counts of civil contempt at $250.00 each, the total is $1,000.00.

Regarding the lack of heat since March 2, 2025, notice issued by HPD, under the [*2]Judiciary Law the Petitioner is compensated at the rate of $100.00 per day, from March 31, 2025, through April 4, 2025, at the sum of $100.00 per day for 5 days is $500.00. As to the shut-off of the electrical services, under the Judiciary Law, Petitioner is awarded compensation of $100.00 per day from March 31, 2025 through April 4, 2025, at $100.00 per day for 5 days is $500.00. Petitioner credibly testified as to the food in the refrigerator spoiling due to lack of electricity. While HPD has not waived its rights to seek civil penalties, here civil penalties are not issued as HPD determined that the apartment was subject to a vacate order.

As to the harassment claim under the New York City Administrative Code, the Housing Maintenance Code, interruption or discontinuances of essential services and removing the possessions of any person who is lawfully entitled to occupancy of the dwelling unit constitute harassment. NYC Adm Code §27-2004(a)(48)(i) and (ii). The hearing established an intentional misrepresentation from the time HPD executed the vacate order through the date of the hearing. While there is a rebuttable presumption that would appear to be available to an apparently small landlord, here Respondent's own testimony established an intent to deny Petitioner access to his personal belongings and while arguing, without a factual basis, that Petitioner had removed his own belongings. The effect of denying Petitioner access to retrieve his belongings falls within the intent to cause Petitioner to surrender or waive any rights in relation to the occupancy. Petitioner's belongings were lawfully in the apartment as he had a landlord-tenant relationship with Respondent since March 2023.

Here, the violation issued by HPD called for the apartment to be vacated until proof of compliance is filed by Respondent. In particular, the violation is stated as "file plans and application and obtain a certificate of occupancy to legalize the conversion from a private dwelling to multiple dwelling use if lawfully feasible or restore to lawful occupancy." The HPD vacate order is not tantamount to a judgment of possession and would not grant Respondent such a judgment. The HPD violation directed Respondent to discontinue the use of the rooms for living, and to disconnect the plumbing fixtures and cooking space. The HPD violations did not indicate to shut-off the heat or the electricity or to remove Petitioner's belongings. To the extent Respondent argued that all items were removed, it would have been Respondent who removed Petitioner's possession, and this act is proscribed in the harassment code. Petitioner established that he had not removed his personal belongings, and only at the hearing did Respondent state that the possessions were still in the apartment. Prior to the admission during the hearing, Petitioner's belongings were non-existing and treated as if they had been removed. Respondent did not contest the heat and electrical shut-off while Petitioner was lawfully in possession.

In addition to ordering the civil contempt fines pursuant to the Judiciary Law, the Court concludes that Respondent engaged in harassment against Petitioner under Housing Maintenance Code pursuant to NYC Admin Code §27-2005(d) and §27-2115(m). As to the finding of harassment, the court finds that a class "C" violation exists because of the harassment and that such violation existed at the time this proceeding was commenced. Pursuant to §27-2115(m)(2) the court imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $2,000.00, as a judgment in favor of HPD. A separate statutory compensatory sum of $2,000.00 for harassment is issued in favor of Petitioner

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, after hearing the testimony and evidence presented, Petitioner's is granted a money judgment in his favor and against Respondent for civil contempt under the Judiciary Law for a total of $2,000.00, and it is

ORDERED that Petitioner is granted a money judgment for the harassment finding and against Respondent pursuant to NYC Admin Code §27-2115(m), for $2,000.00, and it is

ORDERED that a separate money judgment shall issue in favor of HPD and against Respondent pursuant to NYC Admin Code §27-2115(m) for a sum of $2,000.00.

The clerk shall prepare a money judgment in favor of Petitioner for $4,000.00, and a money judgment in favor of HPD for $2,000.00, against Respondent.

This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF and emailed to Petitioner at the email address provided to the Court. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.