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

This case presents a clear example why the Housing Court should be wary of inserting itself
into the relocation process and determining, for example, what constitutes suitable alternate
housing. Petitioner freely admits that she was offered [by respondent] at least one alternate
apartment at the same rent in the same neighborhood as the subject premises but did not accept it
[for her own stated reasons]. That she might accept a similar offer now is of no import.

The system set up in the administrative code requires DHPD to act [relocate], whether a
landlord was at fault or not. It requires the landlord to pay the costs of the relocation only if
the landlord was at fault. Ordering respondent here to provide relocation and/or expenses would
render §§ 26-301 and 26-305 meaningless.

The cases petitioner relies on do not require a different outcome. It is clear to this court that
Gonzales, Revilla, and Farber, to the extent they hold that a tenant may
seek relocation costs in an HP proceeding, do so on purely equitable grounds.

To the extent that the Farber appears to offer a broader basis to hold landlords
responsible for relocation and costs, the facts offered in the relatively short decision implicate
equity. There is no statutory analysis in the decision while, at the same time, the court recites two
facts touching on equity: the tenants did not prove that vacatur was necessary for the repairs to be
completed and the weight of the evidence did not show fault on the part of the landlord.

In fact, Farber does not hold that tenants may seek relocation expenses in
context of a HP proceeding; it merely makes the implication. The tenants in Farber failed
to establish, according to the Appellate Term, that relocation was required. Consequently, it had