to petitioner's counsel. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, this email did not confirm all repairs were made.
At the hearing, petitioner's counsel could not confirm with any degree of specificity or with personal knowledge whether repairs were made and when they were [*4]made. Counsel said petitioner's agents were in the apartment, but he was not clear if they made repairs. He "believed" that "a number of repairs" were made but produced no evidence to support such belief. Counsel did not know whether his client complied with the building code requirement for the Building Department to re-inspect the premises to determine if petitioner made the repairs. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel acknowledged that petitioner is obligated to make repairs and maintain habitable and safe living conditions in respondent's apartment under the lease, the building code of the City of Mount Vernon, the ETPA regulations and other provisions of law (landlord's legal obligations). However, petitioner takes the position that these legal obligations are not enforceable by a court in a summary proceeding because the proceeding is stayed by virtue of the COVID-19 hardship declaration, and that the court lacks authority to enforce any of petitioner's legal obligations.
Respondent's Reply