Singletary v. Residential Mgmt. Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 December 2022
• Docket Number: 570410/22
• Parties: Shak esque SINGLETARY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC. and River Realty, Respondents-Appellants, and The Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

77 Misc.3d 20
182 N.Y.S.3d 479

Shak esque SINGLETARY, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC. and River Realty, Respondents-Appellants,
and
The Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

570410/22

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, First Department.

Decided on December 20, 2022

David Berger, New York City, for appellants.

Shakesque Singletary, respondent pro se.

Diana Lawless, New York City, for Department of Housing Preservation and Development, respondent.

PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Hagler, Tisch, JJ.

Per Curiam.

77 Misc.3d 21

Appeal from "decision/order" (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2019, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered on or about November 26, 2019, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c] ), judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

The determination rendered by a hearing court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be set aside unless such determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti , 160 A.D.2d 544, 554 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1990] ). Here, respondents-landlords’ liability for civil penalties was firmly established by the hearing evidence, including petitioner-tenant's testimony, photographs, and HPD's subsequent inspections, which fully supports the trial court's finding that respondents failed to correct certain violations cited in the May 3, 2019 consent order. Nor did respondents establish their defense of lack of access by a preponderance of the evidence, since the record supports the hearing court's express conclusion that the May 2019 order "contained no less than four access dates," that "none of respondents’ witnesses testified that respondent could not get access on the scheduled dates" and that "respondents’ contractor, the manager, and respondents’ worker all testified that they did work in the subject premises, which is not consistent with respondents’ position that petitioner denied access."

Respondents’ argument that the civil penalties imposed...