emptying out the subject premises. The Court has already [*22]found, supra, that in advancement of that end,
Respondents purposely deferred maintenance of the subject premises, an "omission" that
obviously interfered with Petitioners' comfort. An objective of the harassment statute is
to keep tenants in their homes. See Prometheus Realty Corp. v. City of NY, 80
AD3d 206, 213 (1st Dept. 2010)(finding the legislature's interest in preventing landlords
from "forcing tenants out" to be rationally related to the remedies memorialized in
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2005(d)); Aguaiza v. Vantage Props., LLC, 69 AD3d 422, 423 (1st
Dept. 2010)(the legislature enacted a harassment statute to address, in part, "a perceived
effort by landlords to empty rent-regulated apartments ."). Omitting maintenance to
empty out a building therefore constitutes exactly the kind of conduct the Legislature
sought to curb by its enactment of N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2005(d). Petitioners
have therefore proven that they are entitled to the relief sought in their petition on their
cause of action for harassment.
Tenants who prove harassment may obtain placement of housing maintenance code
violations, an injunction restraining a landlord from engaging in such conduct, and civil
penalties payable to the New York City Commissioner of Finance, N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§27-2115(m)(2), all of which are appropriate in this matter. Tenants who prove
harassment may also obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees, N.Y.C. Admin. Code 27-2115(o), which Petitioners seek herein.
As compensatory damages, the petition seeks to have Respondents "pay for
temporary housing for Petitioners during the pendency of this proceeding" and to