Part, seeking to compel petitioner to complete repairs in the apartment that would permit him to
move back in.
On June 15, 2007, the return date of the OSC , petitioner argued that he should not be
compelled to do repairs without some guarantee that respondent would be forced to pay for them.
Petitioner estimated the repairs would cost $20,400 and sought a 1/40th increase on the basis of
this number. As respondent lives on a fixed income, it is self evident respondent is unable to
consent to such an increase.
It is important to note that subsequent to the eviction, contractors began renovating the
premises, and these alleged renovations were undertaken in good faith. Petitioner claims that by
the time the Court ordered respondent restored to the premises, the renovations were well under
way as the contractors had dismantled and had begun remodeling the apartment. This demolition
work began no more than two hours after the May 11th eviction.
In reality, in the three and one-half hours between respondent's eviction and his limited
access to the apartment, petitioner gained access to the apartment, committed the acts detailed
above and bent the faucet on the sink backwards to prevent the flow of water (See: Exhibit A of
respondent's opposition showing pictures of the apartment). What petitioner is calling
"renovation" and "remodeling" in his cross-motion was nothing less than the destruction of
essential facilities in the apartment possibly calculated to render the apartment uninhabitable in
the event that respondent was restored to possession. On July 16, 2007 the parties entered into an
agreement settling the HP proceeding commenced on June 7th. The agreement obligated
petitioner to make all necessary repairs that would render the apartment habitable and