In H. v M. A. Group, LLC -- which was an appeal of an order of the New York Civil Court's Housing Part (HP) -- the Appellate Term, Second Department, addressed a critical question of standing and enforcement authority in the context of New York City's housing code.
The case arose after a fire prompted the Department of Buildings to issue a vacate order for a residential building owned by M. A. Group, LLC, with A. N. as its officer. The tenants initiated the HP proceeding under Administrative Code § 27-2115(h), (i), seeking correction of violations and restoration to their units. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) was named as a co-respondent pursuant to CCA 110(d).
When HPD moved to hold the owner and its officer in civil and criminal contempt and to impose civil penalties, the Kings County Civil Court denied the motion, reasoning that HPD, as a “nominal party” in a tenant-initiated action, lacked standing to seek such relief.
The AT2 reversed. Drawing on longstanding principles of New York practice, the court emphasized that any interested party may move for any relief the court is empowered to grant. HPD, as the agency charged with enforcing the Housing Maintenance Code, was not merely a nominal party but a central actor in the statutory enforcement scheme. The court cited precedent affirming HPD’s role in safeguarding the public interest in housing standards, noting that HP proceedings are not limited to private landlord-tenant disputes but serve broader regulatory purposes.
Accordingly, the AT2 found that HPD had standing to bring its contempt motion and remitted the matter to Civil Court for a determination on the merits.
HPD didn’t come to play—they came to penalize.
DECISION