Petitioner commenced this HP proceeding on November 14, 2014, seeking correction of certain conditions in the subject unit. On December 9, 2014 , the parties entered into a Consent Order for correction of the violations that were issued on November 24, 2014, and the condition underlying the Department of Buildings (DOB) Vacate Order which was issued on December 2, 2014.

In an amended petition dated January 23, 2015, petitioner states that respondents have blocked the emergency exit and the second means of egress of the premises for the purpose of converting

Respondents now move to the dismiss the portion of the amended petition which seeks an order directing respondent to relocate petitioner, or reimburse petitioner for relocation expenses,and directing petitioner to provide unfettered access. Respondents assert that this court lacks jurisdiction to direct respondent to provide the relief of relocation or reimbursement. Further, respondents contend that it is HPD's responsibility to provide relocation services. In addition, respondents claim that relocation is an equitable remedy which is not available to petitioner based on the doctrine of unclean hands. Respondents maintain that petitioner has prevented respondents from completing the repairs and should not benefit from his actions.

Respondents contend that although a tenant who is displaced as a result of a hazardous condition may seek relocation expenses pursuant to NYCCCA §110, the duty to relocate the tenant lies with HPD. Respondent cites Cupidon v Donavan, 8 Misc 3d 1024(A) (NY Sup. Ct 2005) in support of this contention. In that action, the issue centered on the tenant's eligibility for relocation services and the definition of the term "relocatee". The decision in that case was limited to the facts and issues before the court, and is not dispositive of the petitioner's claim in the instant matter.

It is clear that landlords are held accountable for tenant relocation services pursuant to a vacate order under the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§26-301(1) (a) (v), 26-305. Petitioner seeks relocation or reimbursement for relocation expenses from respondents which is not precluded by any function or duty of HPD with respect to the relocation of tenants.HPD is the city agency charged with enforcing the housing maintenance code ^[FN1] , and implementing housing public policy. Under MDL §78 and NYC Administrative Code §27-2005, a landlord has a duty maintain a dwelling in good repair. Petitioner's claims in this proceeding arise from violations of the landlord's duties to maintain the building in good repair. This duty maybe enforced by tenants as persons whom the law was intended to protect (see Altz v Lieberson, 233 NY 16 [1922]).

Respondents' claim that this court lacks jurisdiction to order the relief requested is also unavailing. Under New York City Civil Court Act §110 ( c), this court has broad jurisdiction to establish and maintain housing standards and "to employ any remedy, procedure or sanction for authorized by law for the enforcement of housing standards". Relocation expenses have been

Petitioner asserts that he relied on respondents' offer of housing and turned down offers for relocation. Respondents have not affirmatively denied this assertion. However, respondents contend that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks because petitioner has unclean hands as he has failed to vacate the apartment. Petitioner's cause of action is not based on illegal or wrongful act on his part (Seagirt Realty Corp. v Chazanoff, 13 NY2d 282 (1963], Ashford v Parrino, 39 Misc 3d 150(A)[ App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). The vacate orders from which petitioner's claim ensues are in no attributable to petitioner's actions.

Based on the foregoing, respondents' motion is denied. Respondents are directed to serve and file and answer within 10 days of the date of this decision, and this matter is restored to the calendar on April 21, 2015 at 9:30AM.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

_____________________