façade.In response to a question of the Court, the DOB director testified that he
has seen a situation before where an issue comes up in remedying a Vacate Order that is
different from the original problem. On Respondents' re-cross examination, the DOB
director testified that he has never seen a situation where a problem that caused a Vacate
Order did not have to be fixed.
As the parties are the proper parties, as the HPD violations are prima facie proof of
the underlying conditions, MDL §328(3), as the Vacate Order and the DOB
violations are uncontested, and as the Housing Court has the subject matter jurisdiction
to entertain an order to correct conditions that caused a vacate order, Vargas v. 112 Suffolk St. Apt.
Corp., 66 Misc 3d 1214(A)(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2020), citing Rivellini v. Rolf, 43
Misc 3d 1202(A)(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2014), Various Tenants of 515 E. 12th St. v.
515 E. 12th St., Inc., 128 Misc 2d 235, 238 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1985), Matter of
Miller v. Notre Dame Hotel, N.Y.L.J., December 17, 1980 at 11:3 (Civ. Ct. NY Co.),
Petitioners and DOB have proven their prima facie case against Respondents with regard
to an order to correct violations and conditions.
Petitioners' evidence regarding claims of harassment, the timing of
conditions, and notice
One of the Petitioners, Kenneth Vaher ("the Apartment 8 Tenant"), testified that he
lived at apartment 8 in 219 since around 1999 or 2000; that around the time that
Respondents bought the subject premises, his entire building was one-third occupied;
that the previous owner had neglected the subject premises, which was already slanting
and leaning; that there was mold, a tub needed repair, there was rot in the sink, there was
a collapse in his room in the wall by the sink, there were floods that caused floors to rot,