Respondent Ingram stated that her and her children were forced to live with a relative in
a two-bedroom apartment, with nine (9) total family members residing together.
(Id. at ¶ 8). To alleviate the cramped living quarters, Respondent Ingram
represents that she slept outside on the night of April 27, 2025. (Id. at ¶
9).
The Court's May 1, 2025, Decision
The Court rendered a decision on the second post-evict order to show cause which
provided the following relief: 1) restoring Respondent Ingram and her family to the
subject premises forthwith pursuant to RPAPL §749(3) and CPLR §2201; 2)
providing Respondent Ingram until May 31, 2025, to pay the arrears totaling $23,532.89,
along with April and May 2025 rent; and 3) ordering Petitioner to "restore all personal
property to the subject premises" on or before May 7, 2025. (NYSCEF Doc. 33). The
Court also expressed its concern at Petitioner's "recent trend of evicting occupants who
are not named in the petition; not named in the judgment; and not named on the warrant
in direct contravention of RPAPL §749(1) and (2).[FN2]
(Id.) During argument, Petitioner represented that it is their policy to only name
the head of household in any nonpayment proceeding which, to their own admission, has
the possible effect of evicting individuals over the age of eighteen without due process of
law. Lastly, it is worth noting that Respondent Ingram, through counsel, submitted a
notice of approval for a one-shot deal for $23,532.89, allegedly leaving her with a rent
credit through May 2025. (NYSCEF Doc. 49, at ¶86).
Respondent's Motion for Contempt
Respondent Ingram has now filed the extant motion seeking contempt against
Petitioner alleging that they failed to comply with the May Decision, insofar as Petitioner