Tenant's Harassment Claim in HP Proceeding Was Distinct from DHCR Harassment Complaint

Tenant sued landlord and its managing agent in an HP proceeding, claiming that they had engaged in harassment in violation of NYC Admin. Code Section 27-2005(d). Among other things, tenant said that, after the DHCR closed a harassment case she had filed with the agency, landlord's staff no longer responded to most of her requests for repairs and service.

Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case and asked for sanctions against tenant. Landlord argued that: (a) tenant failed to state a cause of action; (b) tenant was collaterally estopped from raising her claim in court because she already had made a harassment claim before the DHCR; (c) tenant's DHCR complaint for harassment was still pending before the agency; and (d) landlord had "documentary evidence" that supported dismissal.

The court ruled against landlord. The court found no basis for dismissal in any of landlord's arguments. Tenant sufficiently stated a claim by alleging that landlord failed to correct conditions that made her apartment unlivable or unfit for habitation. At least one of these conditions was described in an HPD Vacate Order issued for the building. And tenant claimed that landlord failed to repair a loose tile in the building's common area. As to the DHCR harassment case, in September 2020, a DHCR attorney wrote that after a conference she found no further enforcement action was warranted and recommended that the DHCR close the case. But this wasn't a DHCR ruling and there was no proof that the issues in the DHCR case were identical to those presented in this housing court case. The claims before the DHCR and the court also sprang from different laws and provided for different relief. For these reasons, it also didn't matter that the DHCR harassment complaint was still pending. Finally, sworn statements and emails submitted by landlord can't be considered "documentary evidence." And the regulatory agreement and leases submitted didn't seem relevant to the harassment issue. 

Estrada v. Tower 31 LLC: Index No. L&T876/20, 2021 NY Slip Op 51214(U)(Civ. Ct. NY; 12/7/21; Ortiz, J)