DINAH AQUIRRE DUBRAVKA RISTIC FENNY CHUNG PRAPANCHA SOEKORO v. 511 LLC MEILING CHOW DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Recitation, as required by C.P.L.R. § 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of this motion.

Papers Numbered

Order to Show Cause With Affidavit and Exhibit 1 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 62-64)

Answering Affirmation With Affidavit and Exhibits 2 (Doc. Nos. 67-71)

Petitioners-Movants' Letter Correspondence 3 (Doc. No. 72)

After oral argument and testimony taken on September 4, 2026, and foregoing cited papers, the decision and order on this motion is as follows:

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Petitioners are tenants at 50-17 5th Street in Queens. The building is an interim multiple dwelling, registered with the Loft Board. Respondent Meiling Chow is a member of co-respondent 511 H+H LLC. On March 23, 2016, the court issued an Order to Correct (OTC), directing the respondents to cure conditions found to violate codes related to housing maintenace. (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 14). In particular, respondents were to address the following conditions: mold in the bedroom at apartment 1-B, mold and leak in the bedroom, mold and leak in the living room, and mold and leak in the storage room, all in apartment 3; furthermore, there was scalding hot water throughout the building. (see Doc. No. 14, 3/20/26 inspection results). In addition, OATH/ECB issued a violation on or about December 29, 2025 which notes that the third-floor apartment "shows evidence of water damage coming from the roof. Water leaks are visible throughout the entire apartment. Roof membrane shows area that were patched, signs of air bubbles still exist throughout. (see id). The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene also found "visible mold on wall and ceiling in the 3rd floor." (see id).

Petitioners previously moved for contempt alleging respondent failed to comply with the OTC's mandates. (see Doc. No. 20). Petitioners also moved to amend the OTC to include lack of hot water and gas, which occurred after the original OTC. (see Doc. No. 35). The motion to amend was granted to the extent of issuance of a new order to correct addressing only the lack of hot water and gas. Both conditions were classified as class 'C' violations and respondent was given (14) days to correct. (see Doc. No. 48).¹

However, the prior contempt motion was denied with the court holding that the March 23, 2026 OTC failed to include dates certain by which respondents were required to correct conditions. (see Doc. No. 49). Having the power to clarify the ambiguity in the OTC, the court deemed the water damage at the 3rd Floor as a class 'C' violation, to be corrected in (21) days. Mold at the 3rd floor ceiling was deemed a class 'C' violation, to be corrected in (21) days. The roof leak was deemed a class 'B' violation, to be corrected within (30) days. There was insufficient information for classification of the mold in the bedroom at apartment 1-B. (see id).

Petitioners now move to hold respondents in contempt for not complying with the July 20, 2026 OTC. Petitioners also move to clarify the March OTC with respect to the mold condition in apartment 1-B, (see Doc. No. 64),² and for civil penalties and other relief.

DISCUSSION

THE MOLD CONDITION IN APT. 1-B

The court first addresses the mold in apartment 1-B. The tenant of 1-B avers that "no work was performed to address the mold." (see Doc. No. 62). Furthermore, petitioner produced a witness (Mr. Hampy) who visited the apartment and inspected the relevant area in October of 2025 and August of 2026. Mr. Hampy, a state-licensed mold assessor, determined that no remediation had been done in 1-B. Mr. Hampy testified that while the wall was dry in August of 2026, the wall was more damaged than it was in October of 2025.

Consequently, the court clarifies the March 2026 OTC as follows: the mold in apartment 1-B is deemed a class 'B' violation, which is to be corrected within (30) days of petitioner serving a copy of this order with a notice of entry on respondents.

CONTEMPT

"To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence, that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect; the order was disobeyed by a party who had knowledge of its terms; and the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct." (Parada v Herron, 223 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept. 2024] [internal citations omitted]; Massimi v Massimi, 56 AD3d 624, 624 [2d Dept. 2008]; Matter of McCormack v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]). There is no burden on the alleged contemnor unless the movant first establishes each element. (see Lugo v Torres, 174 D3d 595, 596 [2d Dept. 2019]).

However, "[t]he Court's power to punish a party for civil contempt is discretionary and the Court should exercise that discretion in light of the facts and circumstances in each particular case." (Castillo v Banner Group LLC, 63 Misc 3d 1235[A] at *3, 2019 NY Slip Op 50897[U] [Civ Ct, New York County 2019] citing In Re Hildreth, 28 AD2d 290, 292 [1st Dept. 1967]).

This court is empowered to punish for contempt. (see RH 528 West 159 Street LP v Timofeeva, 81 Misc 3d 1102, 1104 [Civ Ct, New York County 2023], citing New York Civil Court Act § 110(e)). And, it may do so without a hearing when the court finds there are no factual disputes as to the elements of contempt. (see Castillo v Banner Group LLC, 63 Misc 3d 1235(A), 2 [Civ Ct, New York County 2019], citing Mollah v Mollah, 136 AD3d 992, 994 [2d Dept. 2016]).

The July 20, 2026 OTC is a lawful order with an unequivocal mandate. (see e.g. Lu v Betancourt, 116 AD2d 492, 493-94 [1st Dept. 1986] ("Order perfectly clear in "directing that violation...be corrected" by date certain); Department of Housing Pres. & Dev of City of New York v Living Waters Realty Inc., 14 Misc 3d 484, 486 [Civ Ct, New York County 2006] (unequivocal mandate that the prior owner was to correct the violations listed in the inspection report)).

Respondents had knowledge of the OTC.

The prejudice faced by the petitioners living without gas and hot water is obvious. Indeed, courts have found that the failure to make court-ordered repairs "necessarily prejudices" tenants. (see Schlueter v E. 45th Dev. LLC, 9 Misc 3d 1105(A) [Civ Ct, New York County 2005], citing Various Tenants of 446-448 W. 167th St. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 153 Misc 2d 221 [App Term, 1st Dept. 1992]; Anumudu v Bennett, 72 Misc 3d 1219(A), 7 [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2021]; Brown v 315 E. 69 St. Owners Corp., 11 Misc 3d 1069(A), 2 [Civ Ct, New York County 2006]; DHPD v Ohebshalom, 81 Misc 3d 1210(A), 3 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2023]).

Petitioners' motion is straightforward. They argue that the July 20, 2026 OTC affords respondents (14) days to restore gas service [upon which hot water is dependent] and that respondents failed to do so as of their filing [August 9, 2026]. Petitioners established each element of civil contempt, shifting the burden to the respondents to refute an element, "or to offer evidence of a defense such an inability to comply with the order." (Ferrante v Stanford, 172 AD3d 31, 36 [2d Dept. 2019]).

In opposition, Ms. Chow argues she did not cause the gas shut-off but nevertheless alleges that she contacted several licensed plumbers and expeditors "to find a lawful and expeditious method to restore service." (see Doc. No. 67). Ms. Chow alleges the job is complicated, requires DOB permits, and that multiple plumbers declined the project. In sum, respondents argue that since they must get DOB permits, have a licensed plumber perform work, have the gas system pass pressure tests and DOB inspection, and then Con Edison inspection, that complying with the order within (14) days was not possible. (see id).³

Critically, Ms. Chow's opposition consists entirely of her affirmation and four exhibits. (see Doc. Nos. 67-71). None of these documents prove compliance with the OTC, or otherwise raise an issue of fact. In fact, respondents failed to offer any proof that any relevant professional had been hired hired to address the lack of gas.⁴ There is also no proof that any relevant professional refused to take the job.

Respondents' repeated attempts to blame non-compliance on petitioners and the Loft Board and/or DOB fall short. Other than her self-serving affirmation, there is no indication that respondents would have timely complied but for difficulty in obtaining permits. (see e.g. Chambers v Old Stone Hill Road Associates, 66 AD3d 944, 946 [2d Dept. 2009] (in acting diligently to obtain permits, party did not "disobey" court order)). Furthermore, while the inability to comply with an order is a defense to contempt, (see Savas v Bruen, 139 AD3d 736, 736 [2d Dept. 2016]), respondents may not rely on such inability when they created it. (see In re Jamel B., 53 Misc 3d 1206(A), 4 [Fam Ct, Kings County 2016], citing U.S. v Swingline Inc., 371 F Supp 37, 45 [Eastern District, New York 1974]). Here, respondents fail to show reasonable steps taken to cure the violations.⁵

The court notes that the gas was shut off on or about June 8, 2026, and the violation for same was issued on or about June 12, 2026. The instant motion was heard on September 4, 2026, almost (3) months after the services were cut, and almost (7) weeks after the July 20, 2026 OTC issued. Even after all this time, respondents failed to offer proof of concrete, provable steps taken to restore gas and hot water. At best, respondents allege good faith efforts, only to be stymied by petitioners and city bureaucracy, but even that was not shown on this record. Indeed, the lack of any proof that even a licensed plumber had been retained and paid suggests the lack of good faith. Regardless, good-faith efforts at compliance are not a defense to civil contempt. (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 219 [1994]; Peters v Sage, 238 AD2d 123, [1st Dept. 1997]; Anumudu v Bennett, 72 Misc 3d 1219(A), at 7 ("Neither good faith efforts nor substantial compliance with an order are defenses to contempt.")).

Consequently, the court holds respondents in civil contempt for their failure to comply with the July 20, 2026 OTC.

Upon the finding of civil contempt, the court must impose a penalty. Petitioners do not suggest any actual damages in their submissions. Counsel's affirmation simply restates relevant provisions of the law; the sole tenant affirmation does not allege any actual damages. (see Doc. Nos. 62, 63). As such, the court imposes a $250 fine against the respondents. (see Gordon v Janover, 121 AD2d 599, 600 [2d Dept. 1986]; Ferrante v Stanford, 172 AD3d at 39 ("where actual damages were not established, the petitioner may recover reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, plus a statutory fine in the sum of $250"); Judiciary Law § 773).

Contempt may be purged by complying with the July 20, 2026 OTC by October 1, 2026.⁶

ATTORNEYS' FEES

Petitioners are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees due to respondents' contempt.⁷ (see Judiciary Law § 773; Karantinidis v Karantinids, 186 AD3d 1502, 1504 [2d Dept. 2020]; Glanzman v Fischman, 143 AD2d 880, 881 [2d Dept. 1988]). These fees are limited to those incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding. (see id at 880).

CIVIL PENALTIES

Civil penalties payable to DHPD are also appropriate under these circumstances. The Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) directs that penalties "shall" be paid when a landlord does not comply with an OTC. (see HMC § 27-2115(h)). The conditions here should have been corrected no later than August 3, 2026 [(14) days after the OTC]. Respondents do not present sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing. Consequently, DHPD is awarded civil penalties in the amount of $29,250.⁸

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, petitioners' motion is granted to the extent set forth. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that respondents shall correct the class 'B' mold violation in apartment 1-B at bedroom wall, within (30) days of service of this order on respondents with notice of entry filed; and it is further

ORDERED, that respondents are held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the July 20, 2026 Order to Correct; and it is further

ORDERED, that petitioners are awarded a money judgment for $250; and it is further

ORDERED, that respondents may purge contempt by restoring gas and hot water on or before October 1, 2026 and payment of the $250 fine; and it further

ORDERED, that DHPD shall have a judgment in the amount of $29,250.00 against the respondents, which may enter as a lien against the property; and is further

ORDERED, that petitioners shall provide reasonable access as required for the respondents to restore the gas and hot water; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Department of Building and/or Loft Board inspector shall inspect the subject premises on or after October 1, 2026 and provide results to all parties via NYSCEF within (5) days thereafter; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall appear before this court on October 16, 2026, at 9:30 AM for the court to monitor compliance and for a conference on reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. It will be posted on NYSCEF.

Dated: September 11, 2026

SO ORDERED,

Queens, New York

HON. SHORAB IBRAHIM

Judge, Housing Part C

FOOTNOTES

1.   This second OTC does not supersede the March 23, 2026 OTC. It remains in effect subject to the court's clarifications noted in the July 23, 2026 Order. (see Doc. No. 49).

2.   Although the March OTC is referenced in the motion and many of the items subject to that OTC were discussed during conference and testimony, the instant motion does not seek contempt based on that OTC.

3.   On August 2, 2026 respondents filed certain documents on NYSCEF which purport to be a request for an extension of time to restore gas service. In these documents, respondents ask for a (90) day extension. Ms. Chow is admittedly a manager of several buildings and cannot be considered an unsophisticated party. Despite the court's repeated direction for her to hire counsel, Ms. Chow chooses to defend herself in these proceedings.

4.   None of the documents provided with above mentioned extension request indicate that respondents had hired a plumber, expediter, architect, engineer, or any other relevant professional to address the lack of gas.

5.   It is entirely possible that respondents' time to correct would have been extended if sufficient steps to address the violations in a timely manner was shown.

6.   The start of "heat season."

7.   Expenses and attorney's fees are sought in the contempt motion. (see Doc. No. 64).

8.   See attached civil penalties calculations. The court chooses the middle ground in penalties hoping that the significant judgment compels respondents to restore the services. The court may order maximum penalties prospectively if respondents fail to restore the services as ordered herein.

Shorab Ibrahim, J.