evident from the Work Orders and the testimony of Petitioner's superintendent that repairs were
being made during the time the apartment was empty and being readied for the next tenant.
Petitioner's photographs taken around this time show the transfer apartment to be in excellent
condition. The three HPD violations were all dismissed based on a certification received on April
20, 2017. The super testified that the new tenant who did move in has had no complaints.
If Respondent's complaints about the condition of the transfer apartment were made in [*16]good faith, she would not have refused to move but rather would
have stayed in touch with Ms. Roman to monitor the repairs, ensure correction of the violations
and effectuate as smooth a transition as possible. Instead, she testified that after her inspection of
the apartment with Ms. Roman in early February 2017 she told Ms. Roman that she was not
accepting the apartment. Further, rather than trying to resolve the issues, Respondent testified
that upon returning the keys to Ms. Roman on March 1, 2017 after the HP Action inspection she
did not speak with Ms. Roman about the repairs or anything else. Instead, Respondent's next
communication with Ms. Roman was through her lawyer, who sent a letter on March 17, 2017
which simply stated that the lawyer had been retained "in regard to various issues involving
[Respondent's] tenancy", with no indication that she wanted to address the alleged refusal to
allow Respondent to add her nephew to her household and/or the violations in the proposed
relocation apartment, the reasons Respondent now uses as her justification for refusing to move.
While Respondent claims Petitioner ignored her unproven request to add her nephew to her