Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

known that subject premises were a 3 bedroom apartment at time petitioner . . . purchased
subject [*8]premises." (Affirmation of Fernandez, Feb. 8, 2010, �
5.) Because petitioner purchased the building in 2007 and the DOB inspection took place in
2009, the inspection pictures are not necessarily probative of whether the petitioner was aware
that the premises contained three bedrooms. Testimony of individuals with personal knowledge
should suffice. Respondent's request is denied.

Respondent Chen also asks this court in limine to exclude evidence about the alleged
construction of bunk beds or the November 2009 DOB violation alleging erecting partitions as
prejudicial to her. Respondent argues that the DOB violation is "not an indication of fact"
(Affirmation of Fernandez, Dec. 30, 2009, � 23) and would be substantially prejudicial because
of petitioner's allegation that "since respondent allegedly built bunkbeds, respondent built
partitions that are the subject of respondent's diminution in services claim." (Affirmation of
Fernandez, Dec. 30, 2009, ¶ 23.) Petitioner also noted that "Respondent's counsel . . . has
already admitted in open court that his clients installed the bunkbeds in the apartment which
caused the issuance of this vacate order." (Affirmation of Gee, Mar. 8, 2010, ¶ 7.)
Petitioner opposes the exclusion of the November 2009 DOB violation because "respondent has
provided no valid basis to exclude such evidence" and argues that the fact-finder should
determine the relevance of the DOB violation at trial. (Affirmation of Gee, Jan 6, 2010, ¶
44.) Respondent Chen's in limine motion to exclude the evidence of the November 2009 DOB
violation is denied for now but may be considered by the trial judge, who will determine at trial
the relevance of the violation.