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

Under NYC Admin Code § 26-305, when DHPD provides relocation services, a private
landlord must reimburse DHPD's relocation expenses, provided the building owner was
responsible for the violation that caused a vacate order. (id, 29 NY3d at 50). On their
face, these statutes do not require that the owner-landlord of a private building provide
relocation services.

A fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that a court "should attempt to effectuate the
intent of the Legislature" (Majewski v Broadalbin—Perth Cent. School Dist., 91
NY2d 577, 583, 673 NYS2d 966 [1998] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Since
"the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of
interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof"
(id.). Further, "it is a well-established rule that resort must be had to the natural
signification of the words employed, and if they have a definite meaning, which involves no
absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction and courts have no right to add to or
take away from that meaning" (id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). New
language should not be "imported into a statute to give it a meaning not otherwise found therein"
(Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 394, 626 NYS2d 1
[1995]).

There is no provision of statutory law that petitioner cites to which contemplates that a
landlord provide relocation services or pay for relocation.

However, petitioner cites to several cases, Revilla v 620 W. 182nd Street Heights
Associates, LLC, (47 Misc 3d 1211[A] [Civ Ct, New York County 2015]), Gonzalez v Kwik Realty, LLC, (42