requires more than inadvertence[,] and we have noted in other contexts that it requires actions
performed 'knowingly, intentionally or deliberately'" (Matter of Cervini Car Wash, Inc. v
Adduci, 167 AD2d 751, 752 [3d Dept 1990][quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, in
other contexts, courts have construed "willfully" to mean whether someone "knew or should have
known" that they were violating the law (Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v Musolino, 136 AD3d
1186, 1187 [3d Dept 2016]; Matter of Baywood Elec. Corp. v New York State Dept. of
Labor, 232 AD2d 553, 555 [2d Dept 1996]).
In cases involving whether a landlord willfully violated rent statutes that prohibited the
landlord from demanding rent in excess of lawful emergency rent, one court ruled,
"the word 'wilfully' should, I think, be applied to a specific intention on the part of
the landlord to violate the law, to defy the statute, an intent deliberately to exact a rent known to
the landlord to be unlawful, or at least one which it may be fairly inferred that the landlord as a
reasonable man knew was unlawful"(Manufacturers Trust Co. v Arvin
Chemists, Inc., 187 Misc 38, 39 [NY City Ct 1946]). Another court ruled, "The word
'wilfully' in this statute which imposes a penalty or forfeiture, means much more than
intentionally. It means malevolently, with an evil purpose, and without grounds for believing the
act to be lawful. It implies some element of turpitude" (McDougall v Service Garage,
Inc., 187 Misc 950, 953 [NY Mun Ct 1946]).
Whether the applicable burden of proof was
a preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence, claimant met her burden of
demonstrating that defendant willfully violated General Obligations Law § 7-108.