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

analyze sections 26-301 and 26-305 of the NYC Admin Code. Furthermore, there was no vacate
order issued, and the court did not ultimately hold that the respondent-landlord had to pay for
relocation costs.

This court recognizes the broad jurisdiction and equitable powers encapsulated in CCA
§ 110 as the courts in Gonzalez and Revilla did, (see also B.L.H. Realty
Corp. v Cruz, 87 Misc 2d 258, 260, 383 NYS2d 781 [1st Dept 1975]), and that it may
employ restraining orders and injunctions in order to enforce housing standards. (see Prometheus Realty Corp. v City of New
York, 80 AD3d 206, 212, 911 NYS2d 299 [1st Dept 2010]). Whether relocation costs
are sufficiently tethered to "housing standards" is debatable.

Indeed, it does not appear that directing a landlord to provide relocation [and costs], at least
where the legislature has established a mechanism for DHPD to do so, falls within the ordinary
meaning of enforcement of "housing standards." (see Prometheus Realty Corp. v City of New York, 80 AD3d 206
[discussing the concept and meaning of "housing standards"]).

This court can only conclude that the drafters of NYC Admin Code § 26-301 intended
that DHPD, and not the landlord, provide relocation services when appropriate. This "duty" has
been specifically reserved for DHPD. The statute goes as far as creating a "relocation advisory
commission" (§ 26-303) which must meet once a month (§ 26-304). This DHPD
"duty" is even enshrined in the New York City Charter. (see § 1802).[FN16]
Surely, this court's judgments about relocation should not be substituted in place of a statutorily
created "relocation advisory commission" comprised of persons "concerned with or engaged in
the field of tenant relocation generally."(§ 26-303).