two DHPD employees whose inspections of the apartment were the bases for the issuance of the
Notices of Violation, but Plaintiff does not addresses how, if at all, those witnesses will provide a
foundation for the admissibility at trial of the Violation Summary Report or one or more of the
listed Notices of Violation. (See
Haleemeh M.S. v MRMS Realty Corp, 28 Misc 3d 443, 450-51 [Sup Ct, Kings County
2010].)
In reply, Defendants submit a copy of a Building Registration Summary Report that shows
the same Notices of Violation listed on the Violation Summary Report submitted by Plaintiff,
and, like Plaintiff, fails to render the document admissible as evidence or provide copies of the
underlying Notices of Violation. Defendants' contention that further adjudicatory proceedings
were required on the Notices of Violation pursuant to New York City Charter §1049-a is
specious, since the cited provision refers only to matters within the jurisdiction of the [*11]Environmental Control Board, and Defendants cite to no statute,
rule, or case authority that the Notices of Violation were subject to any further administrative or
adjudicatory proceeding before the noticed conditions were required to be remedied.
The Court also notes that violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, including
§27-2005 relied upon by Plaintiff, may be admissible as some evidence of negligence.
(See Elliot v City of New York, 95 NY2d 730, 736-37 [2001]; Hepperman v MG
Yorkville, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 30557 [U], ** 5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009].)
Preclusion of Testimony by Edward Olmstead
Defendants seek to preclude the testimony and test results of Edward Olmstead, an industrial
hygienist, who Plaintiff notices to testify, among other things, that "as a result of the chronic,