premises in order to clear the subject premises to the extent that Petitioners lost their
homes. If punitive [*23]damages would not apply to
Respondents under these circumstances, deferral of maintenance could potentially be a
rational course of conduct for a property owner. Accordingly, punitive damages are
appropriate in this instance.
While no rigid formula fixes punitive damages, they should bear some reasonable
relation to the harm done and the flagrancy of the conduct causing it. Bi-Economy
Mkt., Inc., supra, 10 NY3d at 193-94. Given the scale of numbers the
experts discussed in this matter — a range of repairs from $900,000 to $7 million
— punitive damages at $20,000 each for each of the six Petitioners is neither
excessive but, at a total of $120,000, substantial enough to deter similarly-situated
property owners. Adding the $1,000 for compensatory damages would be a total award
for each Petitioner of $21,000.
The Court further will enter into an injunction against Respondents directing that
Respondents from engaging in any proscribed conduct stated in N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§§27-2005(d) and 27-2004(a)(48). The Court will direct HPD to place a "C"
violation on the subject premises for harassment. Furthermore, N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§27-2115(m)(2) mandates an award of civil penalties. The Court will award HPD
civil penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 against Respondents for each Petitioner, as
provided by N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2115(m)(2),
The Court also grants Petitioners' motion for attorneys' fees to the extent of finding
that, pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2115(o), Petitioners are entitled to a
judgment against Respondents for attorneys' fees, to be determined at a hearing.
Accordingly, it is