respondent to intimidate or cause the petitioner to move out. The recorded conversation that
followed the posting of the notice confirms that it was initiated and posted by the respondent.
The respondent's witness testified that she did not know of the eviction notice, however, this
testimony was not credible.
The unauthorized use of a marshal's notice is unlawful and may be sanctionable. See New York City Housing Auth. v.
Marrero,64 Misc 3d 1228(A) (Bx. Co. Civ. Ct., 2019); New York City Housing. Auth., Sedgwick
Houses v. Scott, 65 Misc 3d 1229(A) (Bx Co. Civ Ct 2019).
The marshal's notice in evidence showed that Chinese characters were added. The original
document that may have been related to another case which was altered to give the appearance
that the Marshal was going to remove the petitioner from this apartment. This evidence coupled
with the admission that respondent's office provides interpretation to the Chinese speaking
community further demonstrates respondent's ability to add Chinese characters to the notice.
Respondent's unauthorized and improper alteration of a legal document to cause an eviction is
extraordinary.
Decision:
Petitioner has established a prima facie case of harassment. Harassment is not always
blatantly manifested by an actor that or someone who takes responsibility for its/his/her actions.
Instead, the court is called upon to look at numerous actions, documents, recordings, and
behaviors which become evident as intertwined and tangled with other events to show
harassment.
The Court finds that respondent engaged in the act of harassment by
creating/tampering/posting a notice of eviction as if the notice came from the Marshal.
The Court finds that respondent must correct violations issued by DHPD pursuant to the