DOB issued five violation notices to landlord for unlawfully altering a two-family house. On one date DOB's inspector saw three Class B apartments on the first floor, plus two class A apartments, one on the second floor and one in the basement. On another date, DOB's inspector saw the cellar had partitions creating four rooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen, and issued a violation for work without a permit. On that date, DOB also saw three apartments and 10 SRO units. All the SRO units had personal effects and key locking devices on the doors.
DOB issued five violation notices to landlord for unlawfully altering a two-family house. On one date DOB's inspector saw three Class B apartments on the first floor, plus two class A apartments, one on the second floor and one in the basement. On another date, DOB's inspector saw the cellar had partitions creating four rooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen, and issued a violation for work without a permit. On that date, DOB also saw three apartments and 10 SRO units. All the SRO units had personal effects and key locking devices on the doors. Violations were also issued for failure to correct prior 2006 violations. Landlord claimed that he wasn't properly named on the violation notices and that aggravated penalties shouldn't apply. The ALJ ruled against landlord and fined him $25,400.
Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord again claimed that he wasn't properly named on the notices and that the conditions weren't hazardous. There was no confusion caused by missing letters in landlord's name on the violation notices. He was sufficiently identified. Landlord also had notice of applicable daily penalties for the illegal SROs. And aggravated penalties were warranted because the alteration of the two-family dwelling to accommodate up to 13 families created a condition affecting a significant number of people.
Pillco: ECB App. No. 1100610 (11/17/11) [7-pg. doc.]
