Wiles v. Nycha-Pomonok Houses, Index No. HP 688/2021

CourtNew York Civil Court
Writing for the CourtJeannine Baer Kuzniewski, J.
Citation2022 NY Slip Op 22161
PartiesLisa Wiles, Petitioner-Tenant, v. NYCHA-Pomonok Houses, Respondent-Landlord.
Decision Date13 May 2022
Docket NumberIndex No. HP 688/2021

2022 NY Slip Op 22161

Lisa Wiles, Petitioner-Tenant,

NYCHA-Pomonok Houses, Respondent-Landlord.

Index No. HP 688/2021

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

May 13, 2022

For Petitioner: Queens Legal Services by Cynthia Melissa Ramos and Matthew D. Reichert

For Respondent: NYCHA by Jonathan David Rosen and Alan Harris Liskov

Jeannine Baer Kuzniewski, J.

Recitation, as required, by CPLR §2219)(a), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion to Dismiss;


Notice of Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits 1

Affirmation in Opposition, Affidavit & Exhibits 2

Affirmation in Reply 3

The underlying proceeding is an HP action wherein petitioner seeks an Order to correct violations, a finding that respondents have harassed petitioner and an order of restraint pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code 27-2005(d). The proceeding was commenced 9/27/21 triggering an inspection by HPD which resulted in various (13) unreported violations reflected on the corresponding violation report dated 10/6/21. Petitioner had previously commenced an HP action in July 2021 (467/21) alleging similar conditions and harassment and in which unofficial violations were also reported after inspection. That case has since been transferred to Part X and is awaiting trial.

Respondent now moves for an order dismissing the underlying proceeding pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) alleging petitioner has failed to state a cause of action. Respondent, relying on Aguaiza v. Vantage Props, 69 A.D.3d 422, appears to argue that §27-2005(d) was created solely to address perceived efforts by landlords to empty rent-regulated apartments by harassing tenants into giving up their occupancy rights. They then directly extrapolate this to conclude that since "the Housing Authority is a public benefit corporation created to give tenants safe housing it is clearly not the type of landlord that the drafters of the harassment statute intended the statue to operate against." (Resp. Mot. Paragraph 10). They also conclude that they have not engaged in any enumerated act or omission required by §27-2004(a)(48) because their actions have only amounted to a "mere delay in completing repairs does not arise to the level of harassment as defined by the statute." (Pet. Mot. Paragraph 12).

Petitioner opposes the motion in its entirety and alleges numerous failures by NYCHA to correct hazardous conditions within her apartment over a lengthy period...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT