Opinion
2783-13
01-23-2014
Vernon Randolph, LLC, Petitioner, v. Zoila Aharca, Respondent.
Andrew Romano, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner Jeannine R. Cahill, Esq. Legal Services of the Hudson Valley Attorney for Respondent Jennifer Ratan Assistant Corporation Counsel Mt Vernon City Hall
Andrew Romano, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
Jeannine R. Cahill, Esq.
Legal Services of the Hudson Valley
Attorney for Respondent
Jennifer Ratan
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Mt Vernon City Hall
, J.
Petitioner commenced this nonpayment proceeding seeking to recover $4,075.00. According to the Petition, the parties entered into an oral lease agreement, wherein respondent agreed to pay a monthly rent of $800.00 per month under this ETPA tenancy.
Respondent now moves 1) to implead the City of Mount Vernon Building Department, 2) to amend the caption of the proceeding, 3) for an injunction compelling the petitioner to complete necessary repairs, and 4) for an injunction compelling the Mt. Vernon Building Department to monitor and enforce the petitioner's compliance with the building code.
The petitioner and City of Mount Vernon oppose the motion.
In support of the motion, respondent affirms that she has resided at the subject apartment for 13 years. She states that as early as July 2009, the Mount Vernon Building Department has been issuing violations on the apartment. Most recently, on July 29, 2013, 15 violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York were issued against the apartment due to defective conditions therein, including a collapsed kitchen ceiling, roof leak, roach and mice infestation and no smoke detectors. The violations are attached as Exhibits B and C. On July 26, 2013 the City of Mt. Vernon Buildings Department issued a letter to respondent declaring the premises unsafe and directed her and other tenants of the building to move within 24 hours. On August 1, 2013 respondent and her family were evicted from the apartment pursuant to the Condemnation Order, Exhibit A, and have resided at the WESTHELP homeless shelter since that date. Respondent maintains that she has informed the landlord that she wants to return to the apartment once the repairs are completed. She argues that the petitioner has made repairs to other apartments in the building but has not made repairs to her apartment. She maintains that they are the only tenants that have not returned to the building. On November 12, 2013, the DHCR issued a letter to respondent informing her that she only had to pay $1 per month in rent due to the condemned status of the apartment and that the $1 rent was retroactive to July 26, 2013 (Exhibit E). She states that she paid the $1 for August to December 2013. Respondent argues that petitioner is not entitled to the arrears alleged due for May to July 2013 because petitioner was not the landlord during that period, as the Referee Deed conveying the property to petitioner was not executed until July 31, 2013. Respondent maintains that the petitioner has no intention of repairing her apartment and that the Building Department has not commenced an action against petitioner to ensure the repairs are made. Accordingly, respondent seeks to implead the Mount Vernon Building Department and compel the petitioner to make the necessary repairs.
Petitioner opposes the motion arguing that respondent's reliance on the Uniform City Court Act for the relief sought is misplaced. Counsel maintains that UCCA § 203(a)(6), as it relates to UCCA § 203(a)(2) allows a tenant the right to obtain civil penalties but not compel the landlord to correct violations.
The City of Mount Vernon also opposes the motion. The City argues that it should not be impleaded as a third party since petitioner has started the process to make the repairs to the building and apartments therein by obtaining the necessary permits to complete the work. Assistant Corporation Counsel Jennifer Ratan states that an Article 21 conference was held on September 12, 2013 with respect to the violations issued against the property. The petitioner's property managers were in attendance. On September 19, 2013 the petitioner applied for a building permit to remedy the problems. The permit was issued on issued on October 3, 2013 with an expiration date of October 3, 2014. Thus, petitioner has one year to make the necessary repairs. Copies of the building permits are attached to the motion. The City further argues that the UCCA § 203(d) is a basis for a political subdivision to join an action based on its own motion and not on another party's request seeking relief. The City further argues that impleading the city on a landlord-tenant matter would cause an unmanageable precedent for the City to be involved in all landlord-tenant matters. Finally, the City argues that UCCA § 203 (a)(6) is used to impose and collect civil penalties for housing violations, not to compel a landlord to make repairs to a property and that injunctive relief would be premature.
In reply, respondent argues that contrary to counsels' arguments, UCCA § 203(a)(6) and (c) clearly provides for a city court to have jurisdiction over a motion for injunctive relief. Respondent further argues that a respondent, as a party to a proceeding, clearly has the statutory authority to seek to implead a third party under UCCA § 203(d). Additionally, respondent argues that the issuance of building permits is not a sufficient basis to deny joinder and injunctive relief. Respondent maintains that petitioner's hostile attitude and inaction regarding the respondent's apartment strongly indicates that petitioner will due little to remedy the violations in respondent's apartment if left unmonitored for a year. Respondent argues that she is the only tenant waiting for reinstatement in the entire building.
The Uniform City Court Act does permit a party to a summary proceeding to implead a municipal agency at the court's discretion. UCCA § 203(d) provides in pertinent part that "[i]n any of the actions or proceedings specified in subdivision (a) of this section and on the application of any party , a department of any political subdivision of the state or the city court, on its own motion, may join any other person or department of any political subdivision of the state as a party in order to effectuate proper housing maintenance standards and to promote the public interest" (emphasis added). A nonpayment summary proceeding is one of the proceedings specified in UCCA 203(a)(8). Based on the facts alleged, and the totality of the circumstances presented, respondent's application to join the City of Mount Vernon Building Department as a party to the proceeding is granted.
UCCA § 203 also provides the city court with limited injunctive power in actions involving real property. Although respondent argues that UCCA 203 subdivisons (2) and (6) are applicable to this summary proceeding and allow the court to render injunctive relief here, the Court finds that those provisions do not apply in the instant matter. Subdivision (2) applies to "an action or proceeding brought to impose and collect a civil penalty". Subdivision (6) applies to "an action or proceeding for the issuance of an injunction, restraining order or other orders of enforcement of housing standards." This action is a nonpayment summary proceeding, which is referenced in Subdivision 8 of the statute, ". . . all summary proceedings to recover possession of residential premises to remove tenants therefrom, and to render judgment for rent due" (UCCA 203 (a)(8)). However, the Court finds that a city court's authority to render equitable relief in a summary proceeding may be derived from UCCA 203(c), which provides in pertinent part that "[r]egardless of the relief originally sought by a party the court may recommend or employ any remedy, program, procedure or sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of housing standards, if it believes said remedy, program, procedure or sanction will be more effective to accomplish compliance or to protect and promote the public interest." (See Tardibone v Hopkins, 17 Misc 3d 888 (City Ct. Auburn 2007); see also Manhattan Plaza, Inc. v Snyder, 107 Misc 2d 470 (Civ Ct. New York 1980)).
Based upon the Courts review of the papers submitted, the Court finds that impleading the City of Mount Vernon Building Department into the matter is in the public interest and will help effectively remedy the housing violations that prevent the respondent from taking possession of her apartment. The Court is mindful that building permits have been issued for the premises and will not at this time issue an injunction requiring the petitioner to complete the work on respondent's apartment in a specified time frame or determine the order or work performed by the petitioner at the building absent a clear showing of bias or discrimination by petitioner against the respondent. Respondent's blanket assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant injunctive relief. The motion to amend the caption to include the City of Mount Vernon Building Department is granted.
The Court hereby directs the parties to appear for a status conference on February 4, 2014 at 1:30pm. Petitioner shall be prepared to inform the Court what repairs have already been made to the entire building, what permits have been issued, and the work that remains to be done to the premises. Petitioner shall provide proof of ownership/landlord status for the period of time sought in the petition. Also, the respondent shall produce proof of payment for the period sought in the petition.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. The court considered the following papers on this motion: Notice of Motion to Dismiss dated November 18, 2013; Abarca Affidavit in Suppport dated November 18, 2013; Affirmation of Translation; Attorney Affirmation in Support dated November 18, 2013, Exh. A-H. Petitioner's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion dated December 2, 2013. City of Mt. Vernon Affirmation in Opposition dated December 4, 2014, Exh. A-C. Respondent Attorney Affirmation in Reply dated December 6, 2013, Exh. A.
Dated: January 23, 2014
Mount Vernon, New York
HON. ADAM SEIDEN
Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon