Court is not at this point imposing any fines regarding the Vacate Order, so the Court
dismisses this part of the eleventh affirmative defense with regard to the Vacate Order as
unripe, without prejudice to renewal upon any application to impose fines.
Respondents seek a dismissal of so much of the petition as seeks repair of conditions
that DOB's expert testified do not need to be repaired. The Court intends to direct
Respondents to take actions necessary to lift the Vacate Order, but the Court does not
prescribe means. Respondents may choose to take a more costly route, for example, by
replacing the cornice rather than by repairing it, or by using hardwood floors instead of
vinyl tiles, but so long as Respondents get the Vacate Order lifted, that level of detail is
not the Court's concern.
Be that as it may, given that the point of the petition and DOB's cross-claim was to
stabilize the subject premises and return Petitioners to their homes as soon as possible,
lifting the Vacate Order by the means set forth in DOB's expert's report would certainly
effectuate that objective faster and cheaper. To the extent that Respondents are
concerned that DOB, HPD, or Petitioners may cause delays or increased costs by
insisting upon a course of remedial work more time-consuming or expensive than what
they, particularly DOB, litigated in favor of, the best the Court can say is that it maintains
a broad jurisdiction over the enforcement of housing standards and over municipal
agencies toward that end, New York City Civil Court Act §110, and this order is
without prejudice to any claim sounding in judicial estoppel or law of the case in future
motion practice if Respondents adopt DOB's recommendations and then DOB holds up a