permit over an issue that DOB's expert and/or DOB's expert report said Respondents
could dispense with.
In the interests of lifting the Vacate Order as soon as possible, though, in an exercise
of its authority pursuant to New York City Civil Court Act §110, the Court
dismisses any potential cause of action any party has to insist upon an issuance of a
CONH for Respondents to obtain a permit. Whatever salutary objectives of the CONH
program, delay of a permit over that issue would perversely harm Petitioners' compelling
interests in returning to their homes as soon as possible. The Court shall address any
cause of action for harassment by this decision.
Harassment
The Housing Maintenance Code defines "harassment" in a general way as, inter
alia, any omission that substantially interferes with the comfort of any tenant.
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2004(a)(48). The Housing Maintenance Code also
defines harassment more specifically as, inter alia, a repeated failure to correct
violations of the housing maintenance code or construction codes, N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§27-2004(a)(48)(b-2), and conduct related to offers to buy tenants out. N.Y.C.
Admin. Code §§27-2004(a)(48)(f-1), 27-2004(a)(48)(f-2), and
27-2004(a)(48)(f-3).
Given the evidence that Respondents did indeed provide residents of the subject
premises with disclosures relating to buyouts and the evidence that some residents
themselves initiated buyout conversations, the proof that Respondents failed to comply
with N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§27-2004(a)(48)(f-1), 27-2004(a)(48)(f-2), and
27-2004(a)(48)(f-3) is too ambiguous by itself to warrant a finding of harassment on that
basis alone. That evidence, however, leaves no ambiguity of Respondents' goal of