In a dispute between a tenant, JT, and his landlords, Sedgwick * * *LLC (and others), JT accused the latter of "harassment" -- arguing that they failed to correct violations in his apartment and that these failures were intended to force him to vacate the unit or relinquish his rights.
While the Bronx County Civil Court found that JT had made a prima facie claim of harassment based on the landlords’ failure to correct certain violations, the landlords successfully rebutted the presumption that their actions were intended to make Torres vacate his apartment. They demonstrated that they had made substantial efforts to address the violations, were responsive to JT's complaints, and had sent workers on scheduled access dates to make repairs. Although JT disputed the quality of the repairs, the court found no evidence that he was specifically targeted for enforcing his rights.
Additionally, the landlords presented testimony and documentary evidence indicating that they had no financial motivation to remove JT from his unit. Their agreement with the city prohibited rent stabilization exemptions and imposed restrictions on rent increases. They also argued that a finding of harassment would negatively impact their tax credits and business dealings with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the tenant's harassment claim, and upon appeal, the Appellate Term, First Department, upheld the decision. The AT1 emphasized that a trial court’s findings should not be disturbed unless they were clearly unfair, particularly when credibility assessments played a significant role in the ruling. Finding no basis to overturn the trial court’s determination, the appellate court affirmed the decision.
Seems like the landlords were the ones harassed here ....
# # #
DECISION