Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

Misc 3d 433, [Civ Ct, New York County 2013], and Farber v 535 E. 86th Street [*9]Corp, (2002 NY Slip Op 50064[U] [App Term, 1st Dept
2002]), for the proposition that this court may order the respondent-owner to provide relocation
services and/or pay for same in the first instance.

Because each of these cited cases are factually and legally distinguishable from the case at
bar, this court declines to follow them.

In Gonzalez v Kwik Realty, LLC, the court surmised that the broad jurisdiction
granted by Civil Court Act § 110 "to establish and maintain housing standards" provides the
authority for the Housing Part to award relocation expenses "under appropriate circumstances."
(42 Misc 3d at 437). Among the "circumstances" present in Gonzalez, and not present
here, is the fact that the vacate order was due to the building's structural insecurity and the
landlord was already under a duty to correct the violations that led to the dangerous
condition.

In Revilla v 620 W. 182nd Street Heights Associates, the court again cites Civil
Court Act § 110(c) and to its holding two years earlier in Gonzales v Kwik Realty,
LLC. Again, the facts alleged in Revilla are vastly different than those alleged or
known here. There, again, it was the respondent-landlord who caused the conditions
which led to the vacate order. Additionally, the petitioner in Revilla alleged he turned
down relocation offered by the Department of Buildings based on respondent's representations
that he could move into another apartment in the building.

Both Revilla and Gonzales rely on the Appellate Term, First Department
holding in Farber v 535 E. 86th Street Corp for the proposition that relocation costs can
be sought against a landlord. It must be noted, however, that the Farber decision does not