premises was old and in bad shape when Respondents bought it; that the previous owner
was negligent and left a lot of filth in the subject premises as well as sagging floors; that
Respondents had employees working in the subject premises; that the Super was an
employee; that the Super's job was to clean front of the subject premises; that the Super
would help him with the window and fix the roof; that the Super lived in the subject
premises; that HPD did not issue all violations when he complained; that there was a fire
before Respondents bought the subject premises; that he asked Respondent to stop
making him buyout offers in 2012; that he was interested in a buyout at "the end"
because he was worried about the subject premises collapsing; that Respondent asked
him what he wanted and the Apartment 8 Tenant said that he wanted comparable
housing; that he never wanted to leave; and that Respondent harassed him constantly,
saying that "it" was "going to get shut down anyway."
On the Apartment 8 Tenant's cross-examination, Respondents introduced into
evidence records from HPD showing that HPD had dismissed a number of violations,
including a violation in 2016 for a defective ceiling and wood floors in the common area,
violations in 2017 for the entrance door, bathroom floors, roof leaks in the ceiling in a
common area, and heat, and a violation in 2019 for defective plaster in the walls and a
defective wood floor, and that Respondents had certified others, in particular, violations
in 2012 for a bulging ceiling and pipe connections, a violation in 2013 for a defective
wood floor, a violation in 2014 for a smoke detector, violations in 2015 for a window,
hot water, cold water, a light fixture, bedbugs, water leaks on the walls and ceiling of a