Opinion
2012-1440 K C
01-08-2016
Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Respondent, v. 165 Conover Street Assoc., LP, EDWIN LOPEZ and ALFRED THOMPSON, Appellants.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kevin McClanahan, J.), entered May 8, 2012. The judgment, after a hearing, awarded petitioner the sum of $34,500 in a Housing Part enforcement proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
After a hearing in this Housing Part enforcement proceeding brought by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Civil Court found that petitioner had demonstrated that respondents had violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27—2029 between January 14, 2012 and January 17, 2012 with respect to one apartment and between January 14, 2012 and April 15, 2012 with respect to a second apartment.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's findings.
While the Civil Court may have failed to address the issue of mitigating factors (see Administrative Code § 27—2115 [k] [3]), respondents were not prevented from offering any testimony or evidence with respect thereto, and we find that they did not sufficiently demonstrate the existence of any mitigating factors. Respondents' contention—that petitioner failed to prove that the notice of violation had been posted in compliance with Administrative Code § 27-2115 (k) (2) because the "certificate of affixing" is inadmissible hearsay—was waived, as the document was admitted into evidence without objection. In any event, the certificate was admissible (see CPLR 4518 [c]). Contrary to respondents' further argument, the content of the notice of violation form used by petitioner complied with Administrative Code § 27-2115 (k) (2).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Aliotta, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 08, 2016