Court Rejects HPD Vacate Order

Tenants sued HPD to stop HPD from enforcing a vacate order issued on Dec. 9, 2014. HPD claimed that there were various unsafe conditions at the building. Tenants claimed that HPD’s inspection report was false and that Class “B” and “C” violations at the building were correctable by repairs. The court granted tenants a TRO and later revoked HPD’s vacate order. HPD stated that the roof was defective, that a ceiling was collapsing, and that the building had electricity and running water but no gas and that tenants used a single burner alcohol stove. HPD also reported that there were signs of a major water leak in the ceilings and walls on the second story of the building, that there were uncovered electric panels in the cellar, and that there were extension cords and surge protectors running throughout the cellar connected to individual heaters. There also was no drywall to prevent the spread of fire to the upper stories of the building.

The court found that the vacate order was defective. There was no proof that it was delivered to the building owner, who had moved to Georgia, or to Deutsche Bank, which had taken the building in foreclosure. The building conditions didn’t present a danger to life, health, or safety requiring tenants to vacate, and HPD hadn’t attempted repairs. HPD instead had unintentionally become an agent for the bank, which was responsible for maintaining the building.

Marchant v. HPD: Index No. 18175/14, NYLJ No. 1202735218146 (Sup. Ct. Queens; 8/6/15; Velasquez, J)