"reimburse Petitioners for all expenses incurred as a result of their neglect of the [subject
premises]." Petitioners' memorandum of law argues for an award of compensatory
damages in the form of relocation expenses and/or relocation to similar and acceptable
housing in the same neighborhood as the subject premises. While a tenant can obtain
relocation costs as relief in an HP proceeding, Revilla v. 620 W. 182nd St. Heights Assocs. LLC, 47 Misc 3d
1211(A)(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2015), Gonzalez v. Kwik Realty LLC, 42 Misc 3d 433 (Civ. Ct.
NY Co. 2013), the record does not contain proof as to the damages that Petitioners
incurred from relocating. Compensatory damages cannot be contingent or speculative,
but ascertainable to a degree of reasonable certainty. E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Sec. Seals, 31 NY3d 441,
448-49 (2018). Directing Respondents to pay to relocate Petitioners without specifying
an amount sets up a potential fact dispute over an appropriate amount to pay and would
effectively bifurcate the trial. While the Court may bifurcate trials, CPLR
§603,[FN9]
the Court may not do so unilaterally. Schaeffer v. Lipton, 217 AD2d 845, 846
(3rd Dept. 1995). In the absence of such proof, the Court can award Petitioners
compensatory damages of $1,000.00. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2115(o).
Petitioners also seek punitive damages. Punitive damages both punish and set an
example to others, Bi-Economy
Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of NY, 10 NY3d 187, 193-94 (2008), and in
the housing context in particular can deter conduct which undermines housing
maintenance standards. Gruber v. Craig, 208 AD2d 900, 901 (2nd Dept. 1994),
Minjak Co. v. Randolph, 140 AD2d 245, 249 (1st Dept. 1988).
At the risk of being repetitive, Respondents deferred maintenance at the subject