building during the renovation, because beams and walls had to be removed and replaced, and
the water and electric supply would be periodically disrupted.
Sylvia Wheeler, a member of petitioner's LLC, also testified that two years ago, she
spoke with respondent about the renovation of the subject building and the necessity for her to
relocate. Ms. Wheeler described the poor condition of the building with the walls in the hallways
crumbling, sheetrock falling, sewage backup when it rains, and a leaking roof. Ms. Wheeler also
admitted that she has an individual interest in rental property in Brooklyn in which there was a
vacancy within the last year.
Respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding at the conclusion of petitioner's case
on the grounds that there was no cause of action, and petitioner failed to provide respondent with
an opportunity to cure since petitioner failed to provide details of the apartment to which it
sought to relocate respondent. The parties then submitted memoranda on the issue of whether
relocation was required under the law and the facts of this case.
Petitioner argues that respondent's failure to vacate the apartment, so that the
renovation can take place, impedes its ability to comply with the law and maintain the building
in good repair as required under the warranty of habitability as codified in RPAPL § 235-b,
the Housing Maintenance Code §27-2005, §27-2008 and §27-2009, and Multiple
Dwelling Law §78. Petitioner also relies on the following sections of Rent Stabilization
Code (RSC) as support for in encouraging landlords to renovate and maintain the building in
good repair: RSC§ 2522.4 which allows landlords to make major capital improvements and
recover the costs of the renovations from the tenant over a period of forty months, and RSC