Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

because he has failed to take all reasonable steps to restore her to occupancy. Petitioner cites to
§ 768(b) and notes the fact that respondent changed locks and petitioner was prevented
from occupying the apartment in reaching this conclusion. For subdivision (b) to apply, however,
the court must find that a prescribed act or omission described in subdivision (a) has occurred. ("
as the result of any of the acts or omissions prescribed in paragraph (a)."). None do.

Based on the foregoing, petitioner's motion for summary judgment on her third, fourth and
fifth causes of action is denied and respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing
petitioner's third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is granted.

C. Relocation and Costs

The sole remaining issue, then, is relocation costs. Petitioner seeks an award for past costs
and for future costs until repairs are completed pursuant to NYC Admin Code §
26-301(1)(a)(v) and § 26-305(1) or, alternatively, an order compelling respondent to
pay for relocation costs directly.[FN15]

Respondent moves to dismiss this claim under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), arguing that DHPD
is the party responsible, at least at this point, for any relocation and costs but, in any case, that he
already offered suitable alternate housing, which petitioner rejected. Respondent also submits
[*8]that he must be allowed, at a minimum, to challenge the
purported proof of expenses petitioner offers in her papers.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a
liberal construction. The court must deem the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the
non-moving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether