zhNGu3yzWPu PLUS IedtQ==&system=prod...Multiple Dwelling Law and the Rent Stabilization Code and...

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

----------------------------------------------------------------------x

INGRID ALEXANDER, JOHN ANTHONY BERRY, DIGNA DOESSERIE-MITCHEL, RAY ELVY, ELIZABETH HAYES, LARA JACOBS, JESSIE LEVANOV, RYAN MATTHEWS, GIBSON MITCHEL and GRETELLE PHILLIPS,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

611 FLATBUSH AVE REALTY CORP., FIRST KINGS MANAGEMENT LLC, MIRIAM SHASHO, WILLIAM SHASHO, RICHARD SHASHO, MICHELLE MOSHE SHASHO, “DANIEL,” “LISA,” “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE” #1 through #10, Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFFS, by their attorneys, BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES, for their Complaint

against Defendants, allege as follows:

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to end Defendants’ illegal practices aimed to force

Plaintiffs to move from their long-term rent-stabilized homes, located in Prospect-Lefferts

Gardens, a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood with rising property values minutes from Prospect

Park.

2. Over the past several years, Defendants have engaged in an ever-escalating course

of harassing conduct against rent-stabilized tenants: illegally converting permanent residential

units into short-term Airbnbs, refusing to provide heat and hot water, refusing to make repairs,

providing tenants with defective appliances including a “refurbished” refrigerator that contained

a live rat, refusing to ensure the buildings’ security, suggesting to a tenant who has lived in the

same apartment for 39 years that she should “go back to Barbados,” telling a physically disabled

tenant who rejected buyout offers and asked for repairs that he must love this “shit” because he

INDEX NO.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Designate Kings County as Place of Trial

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2019 09:57 AM INDEX NO. 508470/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2019

1 of 62

hadn’t moved out of the “shit building,” employing destructive workmen to conduct illegal

renovations without permits at all hours, filing baseless eviction proceedings, refusing to return

counter-signed leases, and otherwise blatantly disregarding Plaintiffs’ rights as tenants. When

Plaintiffs complain to city agencies about the conditions, Defendants gaslight Plaintiffs, telling

them that they are complaining “about nothing,” and after a violation is recorded, boasting about

the City’s relaxed enforcement practices and mockingly asking Plaintiffs, “what did reporting to

the City do for you?”

3. Defendants’ illegal conversion of rent-stabilized units to short-term Airbnbs

endangers the lives of Plaintiffs because the units lack full fire and safety features required for

buildings legally designed to serve transient occupants. This commercial activity violates the

Multiple Dwelling Law and the Rent Stabilization Code and violates the certificates of

occupancy and Initial Inspection cards for 611 Flatbush, 607 Flatbush and 599 Flatbush

(hereinafter collectively the “Buildings”), which designate them as solely for permanent

residential use.

4. While gut renovating vacant units as part of their illegal hotel operation,

Defendants have allowed the rent-stabilized units and common spaces in the Buildings to fall

into a state of disrepair. They have failed to address the 207 open violations issued by the New

York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) for specific repairs and

maintenance in the Buildings, including for chronic shortages of heat and hot water, seven active

Department of Buildings (“DOB”) violations, and eight active Environmental Control Board

(“ECB”) violations, while equipping the short-term rental units with all of the comforts of hotel

rooms, including separate heating and cooling systems, flat screen televisions, linens, and coffee

machines. One of the three Buildings, 607 Flatbush, is one of the most distressed buildings in the



2 of 62

City – which has landed it in the City’s Alternative Enforcement Program (“AEP”).

5. By this action, Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and the

imposition of civil statutory penalties and compensatory and punitive damages against the

owners, managers, lessees, licensees, operators and agents of the Buildings for violations of the

Tenant Protection Act, which protects tenants against landlords’ harassment, Section 235-g of

the Real Property Law, which mandates that landlords must not require that tenants make rental

payments through electronic systems, Plaintiffs’ warranty of habitability, and for creating

common law private nuisances.

PARTIES

Buildings

6. The Buildings at issue in the instant proceeding are located at 599 Flatbush

Avenue, 607 Flatbush Avenue, and 611 Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. 599 Flatbush

Avenue, also known as 8 Rutland Road, is four stories and has eleven Class A residential units.

607 Flatbush Avenue is four stories and has eight Class A residential units. 611 Flatbush Avenue

is four stories and has fourteen Class A residential units. Plaintiffs’ apartments are subject to the

Rent Stabilization Law.

Plaintiffs

7. The individual Plaintiffs set forth below are tenants who reside at the subject

premises pursuant to rent-stabilized leases furnished by Defendants. Each of the individual

Plaintiffs resides in the specified apartments at the subject premises. All Plaintiffs are members

of 611 Flatbush Tenants Association, an unincorporated membership association formed to

advocate for the rights of tenants in the Buildings.

8. Plaintiff John Anthony Berry has resided in Apartment 4B in 611 Flatbush since



3 of 62

on or about October 2005. Mr. Berry is sixty-one years old.

9. Plaintiffs Digna Doesserie-Mitchel and Gibson Mitchel (hereinafter “the

Mitchels”) have resided in Apartment 3A in 611 Flatbush since 2006 and 1986, respectively. Mr.

Mitchel is sixty-two years old.

10. Plaintiff Ryan Matthews has resided in Apartment 4A in 611 Flatbush since on or

about September 2013.

11. Plaintiff Elizabeth Hayes has resided in Apartment 3B in 607 Flatbush since

1981. Ms. Hayes is sixty-five years old. She is the mother of three adult sons who all grew up in

her apartment.

12. Plaintiff Lara Jacobs has resided in Apartment 4A in 607 Flatbush since on or

about July 2012.

13. Plaintiff Ingrid Alexander has resided in Apartment 1A in 599 Flatbush since on

or about March 2007. Ms. Alexander is sixty-four years old.

14. Plaintiff Ray Elvy has resided in Apartment 3C in 599 Flatbush since on or about

August 2012. He resides there as a single parent with his adolescent daughter.

15. Plaintiff Jessie Levandov has resided in Apartment 4B in 599 Flatbush since on or

before August 2012.

16. Plaintiff Gretelle Phillips has resided in Apartment 3B in 599 Flatbush since on or

February 1980. Ms. Phillips is seventy-four years old. Her husband, Mr. Phillips, is eighty-three

years old.

Defendants

17. Defendant 611 FLATBUSH AVE REALTY CORP. is a limited liability company

with his principal place of business in New York City. 611 FLATBUSH AVE REALTY CORP.



4 of 62

has been the owner of record for the Buildings at all times relevant. The New York State

Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information page lists the address for

service of process for 611 FLATBUSH AVE REALTY CORP. as 2416 National Drive,

Brooklyn, New York, 11234.

18. Defendant FIRST KINGS MANAGEMENT LLC. is a limited liability company

with its principal place of business in New York City. First Kings Management LLC is actively

engaged in the management and control of the Buildings and has been so engaged since at least

April 2016. The New York State Department of State Division of Corporations Entity

Information page lists the address for service of process for FIRST KINGS MANAGEMENT

LLC. as 2416 National Drive, Brooklyn, New York, 11234.

19. Defendant MIRIAM SHASHO (“M. Shasho”), a natural person, is the Head

Officer of 611 Flatbush Ave Realty Corp.

20. Defendant WILLIAM SHASHO (“W. Shasho”), a natural person, is an Officer of

611 Flatbush Ave Realty Corp., and is also the Vice President of First Kings Management. W.

Shasho is actively engaged in the management of the Buildings at all times relevant. W. Shasho

is actively engaged in the illegal hotel operation of multiple dwelling units within the Buildings.

21. Defendant RICHARD SHASHO (“R. Shasho”), a natural person, is actively

engaged in the illegal hotel operation of multiple dwelling units within the Buildings. R. Shasho

has been advertising and offering the unlawful short-term occupancies at the Buildings since at

least 2016

22. Defendant MICHELLE MOSHE SHASHO (“Moshe Shasho”), a natural person,

is actively engaged in the illegal hotel operation of multiple dwelling units within the Buildings.

Moshe Shasho has been advertising and offering the unlawful short-term occupancies at the



5 of 62

Buildings since at least 2016.

23. Defendants “DANIEL,” “LISA,” “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” numbers 1

through 10 are fictitiously named parties, true names unknown, the parties intended being the

owners, managers or operators of the business being carried on by Defendants at the Buildings,

and/or are actively engaged in the illegal hotel operation of multiple dwelling units within the

Buildings, and any person claiming any right, title or interest in the real properties which are the

subject of this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 7, of the New York State

Constitution and because the acts and omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred

within the State of New York.

25. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. §§ 503(a) and 507, venue is proper in the County of Kings

because it is the county where Plaintiffs reside and where the Buildings are situated.

26. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $25,000.

RELEVANT STATUTORY SCHEME

New York City Tenant Protection Act

27. The New York City Administrative Code provides that the owner of a dwelling

unit shall not engage in harassment against any tenants or persons lawfully entitled to occupancy

of their dwellings. See 27-2005(d). It provides a private right of action to any tenant or group of

tenants facing such harassment by their owner of their dwelling units. See 27-2115(h)(1).

28. The New York City Administrative Code 27-2004(a)(48) defines “harassment”

as:

any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such



6 of 62

dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) includes one or more of the following acts or omissions, provided that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such acts or omissions were intended to cause such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy: (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) includes one or more of the following…

a. using force against, or making express or implied threats that force will be used against, any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;

b. repeated interruptions or discontinuances of essential services, or an interruption or discontinuance of an essential service for an extended duration or of such significance as to substantially impair the habitability of such dwelling unit;

b-1. an interruption or discontinuance of an essential service that (i) affects such dwelling unit and (ii) occurs in a building where repeated interruptions or discontinuances of essential services have occurred; b-2. repeated failures to correct hazardous or immediately hazardous violations of this code or major or immediately hazardous violations of the New York city construction codes, relating to the dwelling unit or the common areas of the building containing such dwelling unit, within the time required for such corrections; b-3. repeated false certifications that a violation of this code or the New York city construction codes, relating to the building containing such dwelling unit, has been corrected; b-4. engaging in repeated conduct within the building in violation of section 28-105.1 of the New York city construction codes;

….

d. commencing repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings against any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit; d-1.commencing a baseless or frivolous court proceeding against a person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit if repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings have been commenced against other persons lawfully entitled to occupancy in the building containing such dwelling unit;



7 of 62

… f-1.contacting any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit, or any relative of such person, to offer money or other valuable consideration to induce such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, for 180 days after the owner has been notified, in writing, that such person does not wish to receive any such offers, except that the owner may contact such person regarding such an offer if given express permission by a court of competent jurisdiction or if notified in writing by such person of an interest in receiving such an offer; f-2.the purpose of such contact, (2) that such person may reject any such offer and may continue to occupy such dwelling unit, (3) that such person may seek the guidance of an attorney regarding any such offer and may, for information on accessing legal services, refer to The ABCs of Housing guide on the department's website, (4) that such contact is made by or on behalf of such owner, and (5) that such person may, in writing, refuse any such contact and such refusal would bar such contact for 180 days, except that the owner may contact such person regarding such an offer if given express permission by a court of competent jurisdiction or if notified in writing by such person of an interest in receiving such an offer; f-3.offering money or other valuable consideration to a person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit to induce such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy while engaging in any of the following types of conduct: (1) threatening, intimidating or using obscene language; initiating communication with such frequency, at such unusual hours or in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass such person; (3) initiating communication at the place of employment of such person without the prior written consent of such person; or (4) knowingly falsifying or misrepresenting any information provided to such person; f-4.repeatedly contacting or visiting any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such unit (i) on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays, (ii) at times other than the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. or (iii) in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass such person, provided that if such person has notified such owner in writing that such person consents to being contacted or visited at specified hours or in a specified manner, such owner may also contact or visit such person during such specified hours and in such specified manner, and provided further that an owner may contact or visit such person for reasons specifically authorized or mandated by law or rule; or



8 of 62

f-5.threatening any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit based on such person's actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, caregiver status, uniformed service, sexual orientation, alienage or citizenship status, status as a victim of domestic violence, status as a victim of sex offenses or stalking, lawful source of income or because children are, may be or would be residing in such dwelling unit, as such terms are defined in sections 8-102 and 8-107.1 of the code;

…

g. other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.

See 27-2004(a)(48).

29. The New York City Administrative Code imposes a mandatory civil penalty of at

least $2,000 and up to and including $10,000 on the owner for each dwelling unit in which a

tenant or any person lawfully entitled to occupy the unit has been the subject of such harassment.

See 27-2115(m)(2). It further provides that the court may issue an order restraining the owner of

the unit from engaging in harassment. See 27-2120(b).

30. The NYC Rent Stabilization Code provides that an owner found to have harassed

a tenant shall be barred from applying for or collecting any further rent increase for the affected

housing accommodation until the harassing conduct is found to have ceased. See RSC §

2526.2(d).

New York’s Electronic Billing Statute

31. Section 235-g of New York’s Real Property Law provides:

A landlord shall not require a lessee or tenant to use to use an electronic billing and/or payment system as the only method for the payment of rent. A landlord shall not assess any fee or other charge for a lessee or tenant that chooses not to use an electronic billing and/or payment system.



9 of 62

Warranty of Habitability

32. Section 235-b of the New York Real Property Law provides:

In every written or oral lease or rental agreement for residential premises, the landlord or lessor shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented and all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and for uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety.

33. An owner of a multiple dwelling must fully comply with the Housing

Maintenance Code and has a duty to keep the premises in good repair. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code

§ 27-2005.

34. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to provide heat and hot water. See

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2024-2025, 2029, 2031.

35. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to keep the roof, yard, courts and

other open spaces clean and free from dirt, filth, garbage or other offensive material, and

maintain the public parts of the building in a clean and sanitary condition. See N.Y.C. Admin.

Code § 27-2010.

36. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to keep the premises free from

rodents and infestations of insects, as well as any condition that is conducive to pests. If there is

an infestation, the owner must eradicate the infestation. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2018.

37. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to collect wastes. See N.Y.C.

Admin. Code § 27-2021, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2021. An owner of a multiple dwelling is

also obligated to maintain the grading of all roofs, terraces, shafts, courts, yards, and other open

spaces on the lot. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2027.



10 of 62

38. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to provide and maintain all mail

receptacles as provided by federal law and regulations of the post office. See N.Y.C. Admin.

Code § 27-2047. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to post a sign with the name,

address and telephone number of the building’s janitor, who must live within one block of two

hundred feet of the building. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2054. Where there is no on-site

janitor, an owner must provide for twenty-four hour janitorial services. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code

§ 27-2053.

39. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to kalsomine, repaper or repaint the

walls whenever necessary to keep the surfaces in a sanitary condition. See N.Y. Mult. Dwell.

Law § 80. The Code provides that the walls must be painted in occupied dwellings every three

years, or more. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2013.

40. An owner of a multiple dwelling is obligated to thoroughly cleanse and keep

clean at all times every public or service part thereof, including every room, passage, stair, floor,

window, door, wall, ceiling, water-closet or toilet compartment, cesspool, drain, hall and cellar in

such public or service part.” See N.Y. Mult. Dwell. Law § 80.

New York City’s Construction Code

41. The New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) enforces compliance with

New York City’s construction codes, zoning resolutions and the New York State Multiple

Dwelling Law. Through this enforcement, the DOB issues building permits, inspects new and

existing buildings, and issues violations when building owners are not in compliance with these

rules.

42. According to the Rules of the City of New York, immediately hazardous

violations are those specified as such by the New York City Construction Codes, or those where



11 of 62

the violating condition poses a threat that severely affects life, health, safety, property, the public

interest, or a significant number of persons to warrant immediate corrective action. Major

violations are those specified as such by the NYC Construction Codes or those where the

violating condition affects life, health, safety property or the public interest but does not require

immediate corrective action.

43. An Environmental Control Board (“ECB” violation is issued by the DOB when a

property does not comply with a part of the New York City Construction Codes or Zoning

Resolution. Landlords may challenge their violation at a hearing before the ECB and may face

penalties, if found in violation. Class 1 ECB violations are immediately hazardous, and pose a

threat that severely affects life, health, safety, property and the public interest of a significant

number of persons and warrant immediate corrective action.

New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code

44. Pursuant to New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code (“HMC”), the

Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“DHPD”) issues violations against

conditions in rental dwelling units that have been verified to violate the HMC or the New York

State Multiple Dwelling Law (“MDL”). Violations are issued when an inspector verifies that a

violation of the HMC or MDL exists. Violations are closed when they are corrected, as observed

and verified by HPD, or as certified by the landlord. These violations are classified as

immediately hazardous, hazardous or non-hazardous.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

45. Defendants are harassing Plaintiffs, who are long-term rent-stabilized tenants,

through aggressive means intended to force them out of their homes. Defendants’ actions and

inactions have included, but have not been limited to, subjecting them to the comings and goings



12 of 62

of short-term Airbnb guests, illegally destabilizing apartments, failing to make repairs, and

employing extraordinarily destructive workmen to perform supposed renovation work in the

vacant units. Defendants 611 Flatbush Ave Realty Corp., First Kings Management LLC., M.

Shasho and W. Shasho (“Owner Defendants”) fail to provide Plaintiffs with heat and hot water,

yet they have installed separate heating and cooling systems in the Airbnb units while the full-

time tenants suffer in the frigid cold. Owner Defendants have also brought frivolous lawsuits

against individual Plaintiffs, refused to accept Plaintiffs’ rent, falsely accused Plaintiffs of failing

to pay rent, and charged individual tenants erroneous late fees.

46. Owner Defendants have a history of relentlessly harassing tenants. For example,

Defendant Miriam Shasho’s other LLC, 1058 Southern Blvd. Realty Corp. ranked 10th for worst

landlord in the Bronx – and 13th for New York City overall in 2011. Prior to M. Shasho losing

that building to foreclosure, it accumulated over 355 HPD violations and HPD spent over

$22,000 in repairs there.

I. DEFENDANTS’ ILLEGAL HOTEL OPERATION PLACES PLAINTIFFS AT

RISK, VIOLATES THE TENANT PROTECTION ACT, AND INTERFERES

WITH PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVATE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR

APARTMENTS

47. Over the past three years, Defendants have launched an illegal hotel operation that

violates New York laws designed to protect tenants and the public and endangers Plaintiffs’

lives. There are currently at least five advertisements posted on the website www.airbnb.com for

short-term rentals in the Buildings, and these advertisements fail to mention that the units are

exclusively equipped for permanent residential purposes. These advertisements are posted by

Defendant R. Shasho as “Richie,” Defendant Moshe Shasho as “Michelle,” “Daniel,” or “Lisa.”

National Grid records indicate that Defendant Moshe Shasho is the account holder in at least two

of the Airbnb units.



13 of 62

A. The Illegal Hotel Operation Changes the Character of the Buildings and

Neighborhood and Jeopardizes Rent-Stabilized Housing

48. Defendants, through their deceptive Airbnb advertisements, attempt to capitalize

off the very characteristics of Prospect-Lefferts Gardens that their actions stand to extinguish.

They indicate that the neighborhood has the following features: “diverse,” “families,” “prospect

park,” “Caribbean,” “family-owned” and “Haitian.”

49. One advertisement, posted by Defendant R. Shasho, for a unit situated in 611

Flatbush, is advertised as “New Cozy, Clean Designer Apartment” and described as “beautiful

sun filled space” complete with nineteen amenities, including air conditioning, towels, bed

sheets, soap, and toilet paper, and “cooking basics” such as pots and pans, oil, salt and pepper,

dishes, and silverware.

50. Another posting, which can also be tied back to Defendant R. Shasho, is

advertised as “Spectacular Spacious By Park, Train,” and is described as “[v]ery spacious sun lit

flat in a great location minutes from Prospect Park, Barclay Centre, and all mass Transit. Very

quiet and very comfortable. 65 inch LCD screen TV connected to Apple TV and strong wifi

throughout. Paradise and luxury in a beautiful Flat.”

51. In July 2010, Multiple Dwelling Law 4.8 was amended to prohibit the rental of

any unit in Class A multiple dwellings for less than 30 days, to prevent those looking to rent out

residential units “from circumventing the strict fire and safety standards applicable to hotels,”

and to protect the rights of permanent occupants who “must endure the inconvenience of hotel

occupancy in their buildings.” Class A multiple dwellings are not required to and do not meet the

strict safety requirements of hotels and, when illegally used as transient hotels, create a safety

issue for permanent residents in the buildings and transients who are likely unaware that they are

staying in rooms offered in violation of the law.



14 of 62

52. Owner Defendants’ conduct also violates the Rent Stabilization Code, which is

designed to protect the affordable housing market. The Code prohibits owners of rent-regulated

buildings from charging more than the legal regulated rent for a regulated unit, and Section

2522.5(a)(1) of the Code mandates that the owner provide a tenant with a copy of a lease for a

one- or two-year term, a far cry from offering units for days, weeks or months at a time, at rates

that exceed the legal rents.

53. The illegal short-term occupancies materially change the character of the

Buildings and neighborhood and unnecessarily jeopardize the safety and security of the

Buildings’ tenants and their children. The tenants who reside in the Buildings range from age

thirteen to age eighty-three and are faced with the constant stream of strangers. The Buildings

have lost their “permanent” residential character as a result of these transient occupancies of less

than 30 days.

54. The effects of illegal commercial Airbnbs on the rental market in New York have

been well-documented. A 2014 report by the New York Attorney General’s Office entitled

“Airbnb in the City” determined that “private short-term rentals” booked on Airbnb removed as

many as 4,600 units from New York City’s permanent housing market in 2013 at a time when

the New York State Legislature has already declared a housing emergency, and vacancy rates for

affordable housing hover around two percent.

55. A 2018 McGill University report, “The High Cost of Short-Term Rentals in New

York City” estimated that the median renter household looking for a new apartment in New York

City will pay $384 more per year because of Airbnb’s growth in the three years leading up to the

report’s publication. This means that Airbnb is responsible for approximately 16% of the total

increase in rents in New York City from 2015 - 2018.



15 of 62

56. Airbnb highlights the unique characteristics of Prospect-Lefferts Gardens in an

effort to draw more visitors by characterizing it as an “ethnically diverse neighborhood bordering

Brooklyn’s Prospect Park,” which “mixes easy accessibility with down-to-earth amiability.”

57. In a February 2017 article in the New York Times entitled “Prospect-Lefferts

Gardens, Brooklyn: Diverse, Historic and Convenient,” an associate broker at the brokerage firm

Corcoran, the same firm where Defendant Moshe Shasho is a broker, is quoted as depicting the

neighborhood’s “vibe” as having a declining Caribbean population due to a lot of “elderly folks”

moving away. But that same article attributes the turnover of the neighborhood to the large

number of “buyouts” of long-term tenants. And a real estate agent is quoted as attributing the

neighborhood’s appeal to it being “the last affordable neighborhood in an area of Brooklyn”

close to Manhattan.

58. With the residential vacancy rate in New York City remaining well below five

percent, and the New York State legislature declaring a “housing emergency,” Defendants’

actions and inactions have further exacerbated New York City’s affordable housing crisis,

resulting in the forced evictions of tenants from their long-term homes.

B. Owner Defendants’ Failure to Maintain the Buildings and Their Illegal

Conversion of Class A Buildings Suitable for Permanent Residential Use to

Commercial Use Has Resulted in Fire Traps Within the Buildings

59. As indicated more fully below, the Buildings are not equipped with the safety

features required of hotels suitable for transient occupancy, and in fact have 207 open HPD

violations, seven active DOB violations, and eight active ECB violations. The conditions

underlying these violations are hazardous and detrimental to the life, health and safety of the

Plaintiffs, as well as the Airbnb guests. HPD has brought over a dozen housing court cases

against Owner Defendants in the past six years.



16 of 62

60. In operating a de facto hotel operation, Defendants have illegally changed the

Buildings’ occupancies from Class A multiple dwellings suitable for permanent residential use to

Class B multiple dwellings for transient occupancy in violation of the New York Building Code,

which mandates that if a building’s occupancy type is altered, it should not be occupied, “either

in whole or in part” until a certificate of occupancy is issued certifying that the alteration work

for which the permit was issued has been completed substantially in accordance with the

approved construction documents, provisions of the Building Code and other applicable laws and

rules. See Admin. Code § 28-118.3.1.

61. 611 Flatbush. The legal occupancy of a building is determined based on records

maintained by DOB. For buildings constructed after 1938, the applicable record is called the

certificate of occupancy (“C/O”). Once a C/O is issued for a given building, it becomes the

governing document for the use and occupancy of that building. New York City Charter 645(e).§

62. The applicable DOB record, C/O No. 169624, governs the legal use and

occupancy of “611 Flatbush Ave.” According to C/O No. 169624, 611 Flatbush Avenue is a

four-story, Class “A” Multiple Dwelling, with a permissible use and occupancy of fourteen total

Class “A” apartments, all of which may only be occupied on a permanent basis, defined as 30

days or more.

63. For 611 Flatbush, the DOB has issued seven violations relating to construction on

the subject premises since May 2018. Of those seven violations, one was immediately hazardous,

and six were major. An additional open violation from 1998 is recorded for failure to register the

boiler.

64. 611 Flatbush continues to be deceptively advertised and booked, and unlawfully

used and occupied for short-term transient occupancy purposes, in violation of the MDL.



17 of 62

65. Since January 2017, there have been 35 total complaints made to the Department

of Buildings in relation to 611 Flatbush. Of those complaints, 20 indicate that residential units

are being used as illegal Airbnbs or hotels, and 13 indicate unsafe and illegal construction in the

units, sometimes taking place after-hours. Although no violations were issued as a result of those

complaints, most of the complaints were closed as a result of the inspectors being unable to gain

access to the units.

66. Of the 97 HPD violations in 611 Flatbush, at least five indicate that there are fire

hazards within 611 Flatbush. For instance, one violation, issued in March 2018, indicates that the

fire escape is defective, and the drop-down ladder needs replacing, without which residents and

presumably Airbnb guests – if they found the fire escape – would be unable to get to safety.

Defendants always keep the area in the backlot of the Buildings locked, rendering it useless as an

exit in the case of an emergency.

67. 607 Flatbush. The applicable DOB record setting forth the legal use and

occupancy of 607 Flatbush as a dwelling suitable for occupancy on a permanent basis – defined

as thirty days or more – is the Initial Inspection card (commonly referred to as an “I-Card”),

which states that the Building consists of eight residential apartments, two on each floor.

68. Certificates of Occupancy were not required until 1938. Absent a C/O, it is HPD's

policy to base its classifications of dwellings on the I-Card created by its inspectors.



70. For 607 Flatbush, there are currently six ECB open violations relating to

construction, the building’s boiler, and electrical violation types. The current ECB penalties due

total $11,000.



18 of 62

71. There are an additional six open DOB violations for 607 Flatbush alone. Three

relate to failing to file the annual Boiler registration. One is for no work permit filed for DOB for

the Carlin oil fire burner, which is a device typically used to heat water. One is for failure to

certify correction of an immediately hazardous Class 1 ECB violation as oil was leaking from the

burner. One violation is for hazardous fumes and for a flue pipe (a device that conveys exhaust

gases from a boiler) not being properly sealed to the chimney.

72. Since January 2017, there have been nine total complaints made to the DOB in

relation to 607 Flatbush: Four indicate unsafe and illegal construction in the units. One indicates

that residential units are being used as illegal Airbnbs or hotels. Although no violations were

issued as a result of those complaints, many of the complaints were closed as a result of the

inspectors being unable to gain access to the units.


hazards within 607 Flatbush. For instance, one violation, issued in June 2018, indicates that a

portion of the public hallway needs to be painted with fire retardant plaster.

74. The conditions in 607 Flatbush are so unsafe that on or about January 31, 2019,

the Building was identified by the City as one of the 200 most distressed multiple dwellings, and

thus was selected to participate in the City’s Alternative Enforcement Program (“AEP”). Its

selection could have been avoided had Owner Defendants properly maintained the Building and

corrected and certified all HPD violations. While the Building is currently under the purview of

the AEP, Owner Defendants have made no changes or alterations tot eh Building and 107 open

HPD violations remain. If Owner Defendants do not correct the HPD violations in the Building

within four months from January 31, 2019, Owner Defendants could be subject to fines, and

potentially a tax lien on the property.



19 of 62

75. 599 Flatbush. The applicable DOB record that governs the legal use and

occupancy of 599 Flatbush Avenue is the I-Card as there is no C/O for the Building. Presently,

the I-Card cannot be located by Plaintiffs and is not available on HPD’s website.

76. The New York City Building Code provides that a building in existence prior to

January 1, 1938, and legally used or occupied without a certificate of occupancy may continue to

be so used only so long as there is no change in the existing use or occupancy. See N.Y.C.

Admin. Code § 28-118.3.4.

77. DOB documents indicate that “599 Flatbush Avenue” is a four-story building

consisting of eleven residential apartments.



79. For 599 Flatbush, there are currently three open ECB violations relating to illegal

construction and the Building’s boiler. The current ECB penalties due total over $6,000 for two

“work without permit” violations. There is an additional open DOB violation relating to the

Building’s boiler.


hazards within 599 Flatbush. For instance, one violation, issued in January 2019, indicates that

the fire escape has broken, missing or defective handrails in need of replacement.

81. Since January 2017, there have been 30 total complaints made to the DOB in

relation to 599 Flatbush. At least 15 of the complaints indicate that residential units are being

used as illegal Airbnbs or hotels, and at least one indicates unsafe and illegal construction in the

units. Although no violations were issued as a result of those complaints, many of the complaints

were closed as a result of the inspectors being unable to gain access to the units, or otherwise



20 of 62

unable to determine transient use.

82. The Buildings’ numerous DOB and ECB violations relating to the boiler and the

heating systems, the violations relating to work without permits, and the five HPD violations

relating to problems with the Buildings’ fire safety equipment are evidence that the conditions in

the Buildings present a fire hazard.

C. Defendants’ Illegal Hotel Operation Harms Plaintiffs

83. Defendant’s illegal hotel operation has disturbed Plaintiffs’ peace in their homes

and has created unsafe conditions for Plaintiffs and the transient occupants who are unfamiliar

with the Buildings’ layouts and the location of emergency exits and fire escapes. Defendants’

practices flout New York City’s fire and building regulations, which impose stricter

requirements on commercial hotels and other transient accommodations than residential

buildings that house long-term tenants. In the event of a fire or emergency, Plaintiffs would be

victims to mass chaos in the Buildings as the transient occupants, many of whom are from

overseas, would be unfamiliar with the Buildings’ emergency exits and fire escapes, and the

Buildings’ infrastructure is unsafe and non-compliant with New York City’s safety codes.

84. Over the course of the past three years, many Airbnb guests stayed in the

Buildings’ Airbnb units for just a few days or a few weeks, much less than a month. These short-

term occupants routinely leave trash outside of their units for Defendants’ workers to retrieve.

Plaintiffs fear that the stench of trash will attract more vermin into their homes.

85. Plaintiffs are bothered and annoyed by and fearful of, the steady flow of strangers

of unknown backgrounds. Ms. Levanov has been startled and interrupted while working from

home by squads of police officers, who were mistakenly led to believe that her unit was one of



21 of 62

the units used for short-term occupancies. On multiple occasions, the Airbnb guests have rung

Plaintiffs’ doorbells to gain access to the Buildings.

86. While Plaintiffs’ long-term rent-stabilized apartments deteriorate around them,

the Airbnb guests enjoy luxurious amenities. For example, in 2017, Mr. Elvy and his adolescent

daughter showered in a renovated unit in the Building when his bathtub was not draining. The

place was outfitted like a hotel, complete with top-notch amenities, including a coffee machine,

coffee, brand new fixtures, and a 50-inch flat screen TV.

87. One group of Airbnb guests, visiting from overseas for a few weeks, partied

loudly for hours in the middle of the night in 599 Flatbush, bothering and annoying Plaintiffs in

the Building. It was not until a tenant in 599 Flatbush called law enforcement that the noise died

down. The noise and filth resulting from the Airbnb units is reoccurring, and has caused an

interference with Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their homes.

88. Defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted in breaches of Plaintiffs’ warranty

of habitability, have amounted to harassment of tenants in violation of the New York Tenant

Protection Act, and have created common law private nuisances that have invaded Plaintiffs’

interest in the private use and enjoyment of their apartments, and that invasion is intentional,

unreasonable in character, and caused by Defendants’ conduct in acting or failing to act.

II. DEFENDANTS’ ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE VACANT UNITS

DISTURBS PLAINTIFFS’ ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES

89. Plaintiffs have been unable to fully enjoy their homes due to the demolition and

so-called renovations of the units that are now being used as Airbnbs in their Buildings. Though

the work that has occurred in the vacant units has been substantial, Defendants have not posted

any permits on the doors. Defendants did not register any permits for this work with the DOB.

And, the lack of permits in the Buildings from the past three years is inconsistent with the scope



22 of 62

of work done in Buildings, including but limited to, the installation of separate heating and

cooling systems serviced by five condensers installed on the roof and replacement of sheetrock

on the walls and ceilings.

90. Over the past six years, including on a reoccurring basis over the past three years,

Plaintiffs have suffered in their apartments without adequate heat and hot water while

Defendants have renovated other units in the Buildings from top to bottom. Noise and dust

emanate from underneath the doors of the units under construction, even on night and weekends

causing Plaintiffs disturbance, annoyance and resulting in health problems.

A. Defendants’ Illegal Construction and So-Called Renovations Have Resulted

in Damages to Plaintiffs’ Apartments and a Disturbance of Plaintiffs’ Peace

within Their Homes

91. As a result of Defendants’ destructive tactics, over the course of the past six years,

including on a reoccurring basis in the past three years, the walls in the 611 and 607 Flatbush

Plaintiffs’ apartments have cracked and crumbled. In Mr. Matthews’s apartment, the

encasements are rotting and wet, and part of his wall has fallen off.

92. Dust and sawdust has filled the Buildings. The dust is in the hallway and filters

into the apartments. The windows and doors in Plaintiffs’ apartments are not sealed. As a result,

dust has seeped underneath apartment doors, and into living spaces.

93. The construction has resulted in greater insect and rodent activity in the

Buildings. Plaintiffs’ apartments are at times infiltrated with vermin when construction and

renovations are occurring.

94. The illegal installation of separate heating and cooling systems, and other state-of-

the-art appliances in the Airbnb units has caused Plaintiffs’ electricity to short out regularly,

disturbing their ability to work from home, and complete household activities like reading a book



23 of 62

or cooking meals for their families. Plaintiffs are also concerned that the electrical problems

could result in dangerous and potential fatal consequences for those tenants who rely on medical

devices to live.

95. Anthony Berry. Dust and dirt has infiltrated Mr. Berry’s sleeping quarters in his

studio apartment, and he has been bothered by the smell of construction in the Building. Mr.

Berry is unable to fully enjoy his home.

96. The Mitchels. Shortly after the installation of separate heating and cooling

systems in the Airbnb units, during the course of the last three years, the Mitchels lost water

pressure in their bathroom fixtures.

97. In 2018, Owner Defendants removed a toilet out of the apartment next to the

Mitchels’ apartment, which caused their long-time next-door neighbor, who had a rent-stabilized

apartment, to suddenly move out. As a result of removing the toilet, the stench from raw sewage

emitted from the apartment next to theirs. Roaches and mice suddenly entered the Mitchels’

apartment when the work occurred. They are aware that Defendants continue to gut renovate

apartments in their Building, and they fear that this problem will return.

98. Ryan Matthews. About three years ago, Mr. Matthews began noticing that

Owner Defendants were gut renovating the apartments. Insects and mice suddenly enter Mr.

Matthews’ apartment whenever construction occurs. And Mr. Matthews has had to use his

asthma medication for the first time since childhood due to an increase in dust in his apartment.

99. Elizabeth Hayes. As a result of Owner Defendants’ destructive tactics, Ms.

Hayes’ dining room ceiling sustained water damage and cracked, and the hallway door has

stopped closing all the way. There is a non-functional and unsealed pipe with no cover in Ms.

Hayes’s apartment as a result of construction work occurring in the Building.



24 of 62

100. In 2018, as the illegal construction was occurring in her building, Ms. Hayes’s

belongings sustained substantial damage due to the disturbance caused by the work within the

building. In the kitchen, the drinking glasses broke. In the dining room, Ms. Hayes’s chandelier

fell on her table and was destroyed after Owner Defendants’ workers cut the wire that secured it

to the ceiling. Also in 2018, the workmen pulled out the phone wires in Ms. Hayes’s apartment,

resulting in Ms. Hayes being unable to use the telephone service.

101. Although Ms. Hayes notified the Super about the damage caused by the illegal

construction, the Super said that the issues were cosmetic and that they would take care of it

when the renovations were all over. The renovations that caused the damage to Ms. Hayes’s

apartment and belongings were completed in 2018. But Owner Defendants have never addressed

the structural problems that resulted from the illegal construction and the damage to Ms. Hayes’s

belongings.

102. Ingrid Alexander. Due to the sounds of illegal construction in the apartments

above hers in the middle of the night, Ms. Alexander has lost hours of sleep on multiple

occasions.

B. Defendants’ Illegal Discarding of Trash and Debris in the Buildings’ Lot

Disturbs Plaintiffs’ Peace within Their Homes

103. Owner Defendants’ workers have regularly thrown trash and debris out of the

windows of the units where they have conducted work. When Owner Defendants discard debris

in the Buildings’ backyard, mice often scurry through the Buildings.

104. Over the course of the past six years, Owner Defendants’ workers have moved

trash and debris from the demolitions and renovations in the middle of the night. In the early

hours of the morning, the truck pulls up and the workers dump trash and debris from the back of



25 of 62

the Buildings into the truck. At times, Owner Defendants’ workers have dumped the trash and

debris from the Buildings into the trashcans in front of a nearby building.

105. The Mitchels. Over the course of the past six years, the Mitchels have heard the

noise of trash and debris hitting the ground and the side of the Building from inside their

apartment. The Mitchels could smell the stench of the discarded debris from the outside. As a

result of Owner Defendants’ workers disposing of debris in the Building’s other units, rodents

and other vermin entered their apartment.

106. Owner Defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted in breaches of Plaintiffs’

warranty of habitability, amounted to harassment of tenants in violation of the New York Tenant

Protection Act, and have created common law private nuisances that invade Plaintiffs’ interest in

the private use and enjoyment of their apartments, and that invasion is intentional, unreasonable

in character, and caused by Owner Defendants’ conduct in acting or failing to act.

III. DEFENDANTS EMPLOY DESTRUCTIVE WORKMEN TO HARASS

PLAINTIFFS AND INTERFERE WITH THEIR ENJOYMENT OF THEIR

HOMES

107. Owner Defendants’ agents, who are unlicensed workers, have continuously

caused Plaintiffs disturbance and fear for their safety.

108. Defendants’ Dangerous Demolition Man, “Q.” One of Owner Defendants’

agents, an unlicensed contractor who goes by the nickname “Q.,” has threatened and menaced

tenants, yells spontaneously in the hallway in the middle of the night, plays music at very high

decibels, and otherwise disturbs of the peace of the Buildings. Defendants have provided Q. with

keys to the Buildings, and he regularly occupies an otherwise vacant unit in 607 Flatbush at

night.



26 of 62

109. Over the course of the past three years, Q. has caused a disturbance in 607

Flatbush at least twice a week after 10 pm. Q. habitually moves from one apartment to the next,

stomping up and down the stairs. Q. has punched the wall outside of the unit where he sleeps,

resulting in chunks of the wall falling onto the floor. Q. repeatedly bangs the doors of the vacant

units open and closed each night as Ms. Hayes and Ms. Jacobs attempt to sleep.

110. Although Ms. Hayes has asked Defendants to exclude Q. from the Buildings,

Defendants have refused. Q. continues to act violently when in the Buildings and menaces the

tenants.

111. Q’s actions cause Ms. Hayes and Ms. Jacobs to lose sleep, including on

weeknights, preventing them from resting prior to work. Q’s actions as an agent of Defendants,

are done with the intention of scaring Ms. Hayes and Ms. Jacobs out of the Building.

112. For example, on Saturday, February 22, 2019, and Sunday, February 23, 2019, in

the middle of the night, Ms. Hayes was unable to sleep because Q. was making so much noise by

stomping his feet and yelling obscenities in the hallway of her Building.

113. Q. has also threatened Mr. Matthews. At one point, in 2018, Q. menaced Mr.

Matthews with a gun after Mr. Matthews asked Q. to stop threatening female passers-by. After

Mr. Matthews complained about Q’s behavior to the Super, the Super indicated that Q. gets

“riled” when he is drinking. In January 2018, when Mr. Matthews distributed flyers at 607

Flatbush for a Tenants Association meeting, Q. approached Mr. Matthews, veered close to his

face and said, “[w]hat are you doing in my building?” When Mr. Matthews replied that he was

visiting a friend, Q. said, “you are not going in my building. This is causing trouble.” Mr.

Matthews felt scared and threatened. Since that incident, Mr. Matthews has seen Q. coming and

going from 607 Flatbush, carrying construction materials.



27 of 62

114. Brooklyn Legal Services has notified Defendant W. Shasho of Q’s dangerous and

harassing behavior. Defendants have done nothing to revoke Q’s access to the Buildings or to

Plaintiffs.

115. Defendants’ Other Workers. In May 2015, another one of Defendants’ workers

sat outside Mr. Matthews’s fire escape making signs that he was going to slit Mr. Matthews’s

throat after Mr. Matthews called 911 when the worker had a loud party in one of the vacant units

that lasted into the late hours of the night. Mr. Matthews felt fear for his safety.

116. In the summer of 2017, Defendants’ workers began to occupy the basement

immediately below Ms. Alexander’s apartment, and began to play loud music, speak loudly, and

smoke continuously through the night, resulting in Ms. Alexander being unable to enjoy her

apartment in peace. Defendants’ workers took occupancy of the basement in retaliation almost

immediately after Ms. Alexander rejected Defendants’ multiple buyout offers.

117. Defendants’ workers would smoke in such great quantities and so frequently that

the smoke would seep into Ms. Alexander’s apartment at night, causing her anxiety and loss of

sleep. Ms. Alexander bought an air purifier to abate the condition, yet it has not resulted in a

substantial decrease of smoke in her apartment. Ms. Alexander wrote a letter to Defendant W.

Shasho complaining of these issues, including the smoke, yet Defendants have done nothing to

remedy this situation. Ms. Alexander had to seek medical treatment for her upper respiratory

problems, including, but not limited to bronchitis.

118. Defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted in breaches of Plaintiffs’ warranty

of habitability and harassment of tenants in violation of the New York Tenant Protection Act,

and created common law private nuisances that have invaded Plaintiffs’ interest in the private



28 of 62

use and enjoyment of their apartments, and that invasion is intentional, unreasonable in

character, and caused by Defendants’ conduct in acting or failing to act.

IV. DEFENDANTS HARASS PLAINTIFFS THROUGH FRIVOLOUS EVICTIONS

AND A RANGE OF OTHER ILLEGAL TACTICS

119. To force Plaintiffs out of their rent-stabilized homes, Defendants engage in a host

of harassing conduct, including filing frivolous evictions, offering Plaintiffs illegal buyouts,

charging Plaintiffs illegal fees, and failing to provide counter-signed leases. Defendants’ actions

and inactions amount to harassment against tenants in violation of the New York Tenant

Protection Act.

A. Defendants Illegally Mandate that Plaintiffs Pay Rent through Electronic

Payment Systems and Fail to Credit Payments Sent Through the Mail

120. Owner Defendants, as a policy, mandate that Plaintiffs pay their rent through an

online system or through a portal in the 7-Eleven chain convenience store located about thirty

minutes from the Buildings, in clear violation of RPL 235-g, the law that provides that landlords

cannot mandate tenants pay rent electronically.

121. Requiring online payment makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to “earmark” their

rental payments, or otherwise indicate on the payments the month for which they apply. The

electronic system at the 7-Eleven costs $3.99 per transaction, and because the system only

permits transactions up to a certain amount, Plaintiffs who pay higher rents must pay for two

transactions each month— totaling almost $8 per month. For those Plaintiffs who have refused to

pay through the convenience store, 7-Eleven, Defendants have told them that they must pay

through the electronic portal. But the electronic portal routinely charges late fees to Plaintiffs

even when they pay their rent on time. And Defendants have at times failed to credit Plaintiffs’

payments when they opt to send money orders and personal checks through the mail.



29 of 62

122. John Anthony Berry. Defendants have informed Mr. Berry that he must pay his

rental payments through the electronic system at the convenience store 7-Eleven. For a period of

approximately six months in 2017 and 2018, Defendants were collecting rent from both Mr.

Berry and Public Assistance, which resulted in Defendants illegally collecting twice Mr. Berry’s

share. Defendants never refunded Mr. Berry. Now, Mr. Berry is paying his share though money

orders he sends in the mail to Defendants.

123. Ingrid Alexander. After Ms. Alexander rejected Defendants’ buyout offers,

Defendants stopped depositing many of her personal checks for rental payments. After

Defendants filed a frivolous Housing Court case against Ms. Alexander, Defendants’ attorneys

informed them that they must deposit the personal checks that Ms. Alexander sends. Most

recently, Ms. Alexander sent a personal check before the first of the month, and although it’s

after the 10th of the month, Defendants have yet to deposit it.

124. Ray Elvy. Defendants mandate that Mr. Elvy, who is an amputee, pay his rent

through 7-Eleven, which is located about 30 minutes away by foot. Due to his rental amount, Mr.

Elvy must make two separate transactions on separate days to pay his rent. This amounts to an

expenditure of $8 per month and a total travel time of two hours by foot just to pay his rent. It

was not until about December 2018, when Brooklyn Legal Services informed Mr. Elvy that he

has a right to pay his rent through the mail that Mr. Elvy ceased using the electronic system to

pay rent.

125. Gretelle Phillips. When Defendant W. Shasho requested that Ms. Phillips pay her

rent through the electronic payment system in 7-Eleven, Ms. Phillips refused. W. Shasho showed

hostility toward Ms. Phillips when she informed him that she would continue to pay her rent



30 of 62

through her husband’s bank, stating “When are you moving back to Barbados? When are you

going to Florida?” Ms. Phillips has consistently declined to move out.

B. Defendants Charge Plaintiffs Illegal Fees

126. Ryan Matthews. Defendants have charged Mr. Matthews illegal fees. When Mr.

Matthews signed his initial vacancy lease, Defendants charged him a “legal fee” deposit in the

amount of $475. Defendants finally refunded it after Mr. Matthews informed Defendants in

writing that he knew that the fee was illegal. But even then, Defendant M. Shasho indicated to

Mr. Matthews they charge multiple tenants these fees.

127. In August 2018, Mr. Matthews filed a complaint with the New York State

Division of Homes and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) alleging overcharge, which is currently

pending. Defendants took an unlawful increase in his vacancy lease due to a purported Individual

Apartment Improvement (“IAI”). Yet Defendants did not provide any proof that work that would

substantiate an IAI increase was done. In response, Defendant M. Shasho accused Mr. Matthews

of going to DHCR “about nothing.” She proceeded to pressure Mr. Matthews to move out. He

has consistently declined.

128. Elizabeth Hayes. Owner Defendants continuously charge Ms. Hayes late fees

even when she pays on time. Although Ms. Hayes has requested that Owner Defendants provide

her which months’ payments resulted in late fees, Owner Defendants have refused to provide

that information.

129. When Defendant M. Shasho informed Ms. Hayes that Owner Defendants would

no longer accept rental payments in the mail, she also told Ms. Hayes that she lost one of her rent

checks. As a result, Ms. Hayes began paying the rent through the online portal in 2017. Ms.

Hayes believes that the late fees began prior to her use of the online portal, when she sent the



31 of 62

rent checks in through the mail because the Owner Defendants did not inform her that there was

a change of address and she delayed in using the online portal to pay rent. It was not until she

received a renewal lease months later that she noticed that Owner Defendants no longer listed

2416 National Drive as their address.

C. Defendants Fail to Issue Counter-signed Leases

130. Owner Defendants routinely fail to return counter-signed copies of leases to

Plaintiffs even though Plaintiffs, as rent-stabilized tenants, are entitled to renewal leases. Owner

Defendants only return the counter-signed leases after Plaintiffs have initiated proceedings,

begged for the leases back, or have enlisted an advocate to help obtain the lease.

131. Elizabeth Hayes. Owner Defendants failed to counter-sign Ms. Hayes’s current

lease and return a copy to her. Owner Defendants did not return a counter-signed copy of her

lease until Ms. Hayes filed a complaint with DHCR to get the lease counter-signed.

132. Ingrid Alexander. Owner Defendants have failed to return a counter-signed lease

to Ms. Alexander who was concerned that Owner Defendants’ practices could affect her Section

8 eligibility.

133. Ray Elvy. Despite W. Shasho signing the lease in front of him in Housing Court,

and promising that he would return it, Owner Defendants failed to return a counter-signed lease

to Mr. Elvy.

134. Gretelle Phillips. It was not until Ms. Phillips contacted her local

Councilmember’s Office in order to enlist an advocate to write letters to Owner Defendants on

her behalf that Owner Defendants returned a counter-signed lease.



32 of 62

D. Defendants Harass Plaintiffs with Illegal and Unsolicited Buyout Offers

135. The Mitchels. Defendant W. Shasho has told the Mitchels to move out multiple

times. At times, W. Shasho has offered the Mitchels buyouts without informing them of their

rights. For example, W. Shasho said to Ms. Doesserie-Mitchel, “get another place, get something

better, you always complain.” Defendant W. Shasho asked Mr. Mitchel about his credit score,

told Mr. Mitchel that he should leave his apartment if he is unhappy with it, and gave Mr.

Mitchel’s phone number to realtors. The realtors would call Mr. Mitchel and give him an

invitation to come see a house.

136. Ingrid Alexander. Owner Defendants have also offered Ms. Alexander buyouts

multiple times to cause Ms. Alexander to waive her rights under her lease and vacate her

apartment. In 2017, W. Shasho offered Ms. Alexander $10,000 to move. When Ms. Alexander

rejected this offer, W. Shasho became irate and continued to push Ms. Alexander to take the

offer. W. Shasho informed Ms. Alexander that he had “won the lottery” and could afford to pay

her the money right away. Despite Ms. Alexander’s clear and unequivocal rejections of the

offers, W. Shasho told Ms. Alexander to inform Section 8 that she was going to move.

137. W. Shasho did not inform Plaintiffs Mitchel and Alexander of their rights to reject

these offers, to seek counsel, or to be free of such offers for 180 days if rejected in writing.

E. Defendants File Frivolous Housing Court Cases and Make False Accusations

Against Plaintiffs

138. The Mitchels. Defendant W. Shasho has accused the Mitchels of owing several

months of rent which they do not owe. When confronted with this accusation, Ms. Doesserie-

Mitchel, a former paralegal, assembled a spreadsheet demonstrating the numbers of the money

orders they used to pay many months of rent. Even after Ms. Doesserie-Mitchel showed W.

Shasho her accounting, Defendants have since demanded proof of their security deposits for the



33 of 62

entire duration of their tenancy, which spans three decades, incredulously suggesting that they

have not received their security deposits.

139. Lara Jacobs. Ms. Jacobs also began paying rent through the online portal after

Defendant W. Shasho informed her that was the system they would use going forward. At one

point, Ms. Jacobs received a text message from W. Shasho in which he accused her of missing a

rental payment. When she informed him that she had in fact paid rent for the month he stated he

was missing rent and he then accused her of missing rent for a different month. Ms. Jacobs, who

knew she was up-to-date with her rental payments then told him she had in fact paid rent for that

month as well. W. Shasho finally ceased asking for missing months of rent, stating that he had

the “wrong apartment.”

140. Ryan Matthews. In retaliation for filing a complaint with DHCR, in November

2018, Owner Defendants filed a frivolous Housing Court case against Mr. Matthews accusing

Mr. Matthews of not signing a lease which he had in fact signed. After Mr. Matthews

experienced much distress stemming from the frivolous case, Owner Defendants discontinued it,

acknowledging that there was no basis to bring it.

141. Ingrid Alexander. In August 2018, Owner Defendants filed a frivolous Housing

Court case against Ms. Alexander alleging nonpayment of rent for several months. Yet Ms.

Alexander paid her rent every month on time for the duration of her tenancy by sending personal

checks to Defendant 611 Flatbush Ave Realty Corp.’s address at 2416 National Drive in

Brooklyn, which is their registered address with HPD. Ms. Alexander’s bank records

demonstrated that Owner Defendants had deposited some of the personal checks they alleged

Ms. Alexander never paid.



34 of 62

142. Ray Elvy. Mr. Elvy lives with the constant fear that W. Shasho will bring another

frivolous Housing Court case against him. Most recently, in December 2018, Defendants filed a

case against Mr. Elvy, accusing him of owing more than $12,000 for seven months’ rent based

off a rental rate of $1,826.30, which is three hundred dollars more than Mr. Elvy’s legal

regulated rent of $1,526.30. Mr. Elvy has kept proofs of payment – of the legal rent – for most of

the months Defendants allege his rent is past due. Prior to the filing of the Housing Court case,

Mr. Elvy told W. Shasho that the accounting was incorrect, and although W. Shasho told him

that he would get back to Mr. Elvy, Mr. Elvy never heard from him. Instead, Owner Defendants

served Mr. Elvy with Housing Court papers.

143. Gretelle Phillips. After Owner Defendants falsely accused Ms. Phillips of failing

to pay rent on time and in full, Ms. Phillips began paying her rent through a check automatically

distributed each month to Defendants from her husband’s bank account. Despite Defendants’

accusations, Ms. Phillips always pays her rent on time, and in the past, Ms. Phillips paid her rent

through personal check.

V. DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS AND INACTIONS HAVE CAUSED DEPLORABLE

CONDITIONS WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND PLAINTIFFS’ LONG-TERM

RENT-STABILIZED HOMES

144. As detailed fully below, Defendants fail to maintain the individual apartments and

common spaces in the Buildings, including by failing to (a) provide Plaintiffs with heat and hot

water, (b) maintain the security of the Buildings, (c) ensure the common areas and the Buildings’

lots are free from debris from illegal construction, dirt, trash and filth, and regularly painted, and

(d) address Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for repairs in their apartments.



35 of 62

145. Defendants’ actions and inactions have caused deplorable conditions within the

Buildings amounting to harassment under the New York Tenant Protection Act, are a violation

of Plaintiffs’ warranty of habitability, and have created a private nuisance.

146. Plaintiffs have repeatedly notified Owner Defendants of the conditions in the

Buildings and their apartments. Since February 2019, Plaintiffs have filed complaints with

DHCR complaining of their current repair issues. Plaintiffs have also sent text messages, letters

and verbally complained to Owner Defendants and their staff regarding the deteriorating state of

their Buildings and apartments.

A. Defendants Fail to Provide Plaintiffs with Heat and Hot Water

147. Owner Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with heat and hot water as

proscribed by New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code, and this failure is detrimental to

Plaintiffs’ lives, liberty and/or safety.

148. Due to Owner Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with consistent heat and

hot water for more than six years, and Owner Defendants’ denial that the lack of heat and hot

water is a problem, Plaintiffs engaged the nonprofit Heat Seek in October 2018 to install sensors

in six apartments in the Buildings. These sensors take hourly temperature readings and send the

readings through an onboard internet connection to secure servers where the data is stored.

149. For 611 Flatbush, there have been nearly two hundred hours during which the

temperature in just two apartments was in violation of the standards set forth in the Code. There

are currently seven open HPD violations relating to heat or the heating systems within 611

Flatbush, where there are only about five units occupied by full-time tenants. Defendants have

either illegally renovated the other units, are currently renovating them, and/or using those units

as short-term occupancies.



36 of 62

150. For 607 Flatbush, there have been over two thousand hours since October 31,

2018, during which the temperatures in just two apartments were in violation of the standards set

forth in the Code. When these hours without heat are counted in days, they amount to 83 days

without heat. There are currently four open HPD violations relating to the heat or the heating

systems within 607 Flatbush, where there are only about four units occupied by full-time tenants.

Defendants have illegally renovated the other units, are currently renovating them, and/or are

using those units as short-term occupancies.

151. For 599 Flatbush, there have been twenty-nine hours since October 31, 2018,

during which the temperatures in just two apartments were in violation of the standards set forth

in the Code. Tenants in 599 Flatbush have made approximately twenty-five complaints to HPD

regarding heat and hot water in the past year, where there are only about seven units occupied by

full-time tenants. Defendants have illegally renovated the other units, are currently renovating

them, and/or are using those units as short-term occupancies.

152. Defendants fail to permit HPD access to the heating systems and as a result of

their failure to provide the agencies tasked with preserving affordable housing and protecting

tenants access to these systems, HPD has recorded immediately hazardous violations in 607

Flatbush and 611 Flatbush. Moreover, the ECB has issued violations, which remain open, for

Defendants’ failure to maintain the boilers for the Buildings, in violation of Section 27-127 of

the HMC, and in regards to the boiler for 599 Flatbush, for installing, altering, repairing or using

the Boiler without a permit in violation of Section 27-147 of the HMC.

B. Defendants Fail to Maintain Security

153. Defendants fail to maintain security within the Buildings and this failure is

detrimental to Plaintiffs’ lives, liberty and/or safety.



37 of 62

154. For 599 Flatbush, Defendants have failed to ensure that the premises are safe and

secure. Defendants have failed to ensure that the Building’s security door locks. Over the past

several years, there have been multiple occasions when the security door remained unlocked for

weeks or months at a time. Most recently, for three months, the security door to the Building was

broken and the door was unable to lock for three months. Defendants have failed to ensure that

the Building’s intercom operates. As a result, strangers to the tenants have had unfettered access

to the Building, and the door was open during some of the darkest, coldest days of winter.

Defendants have also subjected Plaintiffs to the comings and goings of transient strangers of

unknown backgrounds who rent out the Airbnb units within the Building for short-stays.

155. In 607 Flatbush, Defendants have failed to ensure that the Building’s intercom

operates. They have also failed to ensure that the Building’s interior hallways are consistently lit.

For multiple weeks in or around September and October 2018, the Building’s hallways remained

dark. As discussed more fully above, Defendants have failed to act to prevent one of their

workers, who goes by the name “Q.”, from threatening and menacing tenants. Q. yells in the

hallways and the vacant units of the building in the middle of the night, from gaining access to

the building despite Plaintiffs’ complaints. Instead, Defendants have provided this individual

with unrestricted access to the building by supplying him with keys and failing to reclaim them.

156. In 611 Flatbush, Defendants fail to repair the intercom which is frequently

defective, and Defendants fail to ensure the outside door to the Building can lock, often for

weeks at a time. The 611 Flatbush Plaintiffs are aware of Q.’s presence in the adjacent building

and are that he will gain access to their Building. They have also subjected Plaintiffs to the

comings and goings of transient strangers of unknown backgrounds who rent out rent-stabilized

units within the Building for short-stays.



38 of 62

C. Defendants Fail to Maintain the Buildings’ Lots and Common Areas

157. Defendants fail to maintain the Buildings’ roofs and open spaces, including the

stairs, which are broken and loose, to provide and maintain all mail receptacles, and to provide

janitorial service in compliance with New York law. They also fail to keep the common areas

and lots clean and regularly dispose of debris from illegal construction within the Buildings onto

the lots immediately behind the Buildings to the complete dismay of Plaintiffs and their

neighbors. The noise from the falling debris and garbage, and the stench from the piles of debris

and trash that pile up behind the Buildings, causes a disturbance in Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment

of their homes.

158. In 607 Flatbush, the hallway and stairs are cracked, dusty and dirty. Defendants

store the belongings of tenants who they pushed out or evicted under the stairs, including old

television sets and other household items. There are “chunks of plaster” coming off from the

walls in the hallway. In 2018, it rained in the hallway in the lobby of the first floor. In or about

September 2018, the lights were turned off in the common areas, which remained pitch black for

nine days in or about September 2018. All the common areas, including the hallways and

ceilings, need to be painted.

D. Defendants Fail to Maintain the Individual Apartments

159. In addition to the deplorable conditions in the common spaces of the Buildings,

Defendants have ignored Plaintiffs’ requests for repairs, permitting individual apartments to fall

into a state of disrepair.

160. Defendants’ actions and inactions are causing deplorable conditions within the

individual apartments, constitutes harassment under the New York Tenant Protection Act,

creates a private nuisance, and violate Plaintiffs’ warranty of habitability.



39 of 62

611 Flatbush Tenants

John Anthony Berry, 611 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 4B

161. Mr. Berry has been unable to fully enjoy his home due to the demolition and so-

called renovations of the units that are now being used as Airbnbs in his Building. As a result of

Defendants’ destructive tactics, the walls in Mr. Berry’s apartment have cracked and crumbled.

As discussed more fully below, these terrible conditions have resulted in the past termination of

Mr. Berry’s Section 8 voucher.

162. For over six years and currently, Mr. Berry’s apartment has been deteriorating.

The following conditions currently exist in their apartment: whenever it rains or snows, there is

steady leak into Mr. Berry’s apartment from the roof, and one of the outlets is non-functional.

The fridge leaks off and on.

163. Over the course of the past six years, additional unsafe and unsanitary conditions

have existed in Mr. Berry’s apartment. These conditions have included, but are not limited to, the

following: roach, bedbug and mouse infestations that have gone unabated by the landlord, a

defective roof and ceiling resulting in leaks through the light fixtures in the kitchen, a defective

kitchen flooring, and kitchen walls that were painted for the first time in over eighteen years only

recently. Mr. Berry had a defective stove for three years.

164. For all of 2018, Mr. Berry’s toilet was defective, requiring that he dump a bucket

of water in the tank in order to flush each time.

165. Mr. Berry repeatedly informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet

Defendants have failed to complete the repairs. When they have made repairs, they were

delayed.



40 of 62

166. In or around October 2018, Mr. Berry filed a Housing Part case for many of the

conditions listed above. It was only after an Order was signed in Housing Court that Defendants

eventually made many repairs over a series of access dates, and Mr. Berry’s Section 8 was

restored.

167. Mr. Berry has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently 13 open violations recorded for Mr. Berry’s apartment on the HPD website,

including one that is “immediately hazardous” and nine that are “hazardous”.

Digna Doesserie-Mitchel and Gibson Mitchel, 611 Flatbush, Apartment 3A

168. For over six years and currently, the Mitchels’ apartment has been deteriorating.

The following conditions currently exist in their apartment: the windows in the bathroom and the

hallway do not open, there is a hole in the bathroom ceiling, that bathroom ceiling is damaged,

and there is very low water pressure in the bathroom fixtures.


have existed in the Mitchels’ apartment. After a leak in the bathroom ceiling, the ceiling plaster

bubbled, producing a leak that lasted for years. In or around 2018, a steam pipe broke in the

Building, resulting in the growth of mold throughout their apartment, as well as other parts of the

Building. The Mitchels’ apartment has been plagued by mouse and roach infestations off and on

for years.

170. The Mitchels have informed Defendants of many of the conditions indicated

above, yet Defendants have failed to complete the repairs.

171. The Mitchels have also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently 11 open violations recorded for the Mitchels’ apartment on the HPD website,

including three that are “immediately hazardous” and six that are “hazardous.”



41 of 62

172. Even when Defendants do repairs, they do not address the underlying conditions

causing the repair issues. For instance, Defendants sent unlicensed workers to replace sheetrock

in their apartment, and they botched the work, leaving a mess in the apartment and in the

Mitchels’ bedroom. In or around 2016, when Ms. Mitchel has reported repairs to Defendant M.

Shasho, she replied, “for the money you pay, you should do all of your own repairs.”

173. As a result of Defendants’ failures to make repairs, the Mitchels have incurred

major expenses, totaling over $5,000. For instance, they have replaced fixtures in multiple rooms

and have repaired the apartment’s walls and bedroom ceiling. After Defendants failed to replace

a rotting bathroom sink infested with roaches, a defective stove and a defective refrigerator, the

Mitchels purchased these items out-of-pocket.

Ryan Matthews, 611 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 4A

174. For over six years and currently, Mr. Matthews’ apartment has been deteriorating.

In the kitchen, the conditions include, but are not limited to: a cracked ceiling and floor,

defective paint on the walls, defective stove, and defective and missing outlets.

175. In the bathroom, the conditions include, but are not limited to: a cracked ceiling,

moldy walls, defective paint on the walls, and missing outlets. The walls have been cracked for

approximately four years. The walls have been moldy for approximately five years.

176. In the living room, the conditions include, but are not limited to: a cracked and

bulging floor, the radiator is leaking, does not work, and needs to painted. There are three holes

in the floor including one under the radiator. There is a leak in the wall and the wall is water

damaged and crumbling. There is also exposed wiring and outlets are missing. The wall has been

crumbling for approximately two months. There is a hole by the window in the living room

where it leaks. Under the living room radiator, there is a hole in the floor under radiator and in



42 of 62

the middle of the room. There is a leak in the wall, and the wall is water damaged and crumbling

as of a couple months ago.

177. In the hallway, the conditions include, but are not limited to: the ceiling and floor

is cracked, the ceiling is leaking, the door is broken, the windows are leaking and the radiator

does not work and needs to be painted. There is also exposed wiring and outlets missing.

178. In the bedroom, the conditions include, but are not limited to: the ceiling is

cracked and leaking; the bedroom walls need to be painted, are leaking, water damaged and

crumbling, and need to be painted, the radiator is leaking and needs to be painted, and the outlets

are defective or missing. The ceiling has been cracked for approximately four years. The ceiling

has been leaking for approximately five years. The radiators have been leaking for two or three

years.


have existed in Mr. Matthews’s apartment. His apartment had a bed bug infestation in 2013.

There was also a mouse infestation. Conditions that have existed in his kitchen, include but are

not limited to: a cracked ceiling, a defective floor, a non-functional electrical outlet, and the

walls were never painted.

180. Though Mr. Matthews has experienced inconsistent heat and hot water, and in or

about 2018, a pipe burst in Mr. Matthews’s building, and the air in Mr. Matthews’s apartment

reached upwards of ninety degrees.

181. Mr. Matthews has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet

Defendants have failed to complete the repairs.

182. On March 2019, DHCR granted a rent reduction for Mr. Matthews’s apartment

due to lack of heat.



43 of 62

183. Mr. Matthews has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in his apartment.

There are currently 23 open violations recorded for Mr. Matthews’s apartment on the HPD

website, including three that are “immediately hazardous” and 11 that are hazardous.

184. As a result of the increase to electric costs due to the use of the electric heater,

Mr. Matthews has had to pay an additional $100 per month for several years.

185. Like with other Plaintiffs, Defendants have repeatedly denied that the issues that

Mr. Matthews has complained about are occurring. Defendants have taken actions to prevent the

governmental agencies from inspecting his apartment for repairs.


Elizabeth Hayes, 607 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 3B

186. For over six years and currently, Ms. Hayes’s apartment has been deteriorating.

The following conditions currently exist in her apartment: the kitchen ceiling is cracked, the

bathroom faucet is leaking, there are open exposed pipes and the ceiling has cracks that are

“deep and bad.” In the living room, the ceiling is crumbling, cracked and falling, and the

windows are broken. In the hallway, the ceiling is crumbling, cracked and falling, and the walls

need to be painted. The electricity shorts out regularly.

187. In the back bedroom, the following conditions currently exist: the ceiling and

walls are crumbling, cracked and falling, the walls are water-damaged, and the windows are

broken. In the bedroom, the back window never stays open by itself and the pipe has a hole

around its edge.


have existed in Ms. Hayes’s apartment. Defendants have never painted Ms. Hayes’s apartment.

Instead, after noticing a lot of cracking paint in 2017 and 2018, Ms. Hayes and her family



44 of 62

plastered the walls themselves, spending money on supplies out-of-pocket. Also in the past six

years, the bathtub was leaking, and the apartment was infested with mice, rats, roaches, and other

insects. Defendants have never sent an exterminator.

189. Ms. Hayes has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet


190. Ms. Hayes has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently14 open violations recorded for the Ms. Hayes’ apartment on the HPD

website, including 11 that are hazardous.

191. Even when Defendants complete repairs, they do not address the underlying

conditions causing the repair issues. Ms. Hayes and her family have completed most repairs on

their own.

Lara Jacobs, 607 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 4A

192. For over six years and currently, Ms. Jacob’s apartment has been deteriorating. In

the kitchen, the walls are cracked and there is no cover over the light. All the windows in the

apartment are defective, and in need of repair.

193. In the bathroom, the wall is bubbling as a result of a leak, and the tiles are

defective. The bathroom door does not fit the doorway.

194. In the first bedroom, there are cracks in the ceiling, leaks from the roof, and a leak

from a drain pipe. In the second bedroom, there is no light fixture. In the third bedroom, there is

a hole in the floor. The radiator is often leaking.

195. In the hallway, the floor is crumbling, cracking and missing a tile, and there is a

reoccurring leak.



45 of 62


have existed in Ms. Jacobs’s apartment. The apartment has been plagued by mouse and roach

infestations off and on for years. There has been a steady reoccurring leak from a drain pipe.

197. Ms. Jacobs has notified Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet


198. Ms. Jacobs has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently three open violations recorded for Ms. Jacobs’s apartment on the HPD

website, including one that is “immediately hazardous” and two that are hazardous.

199. As a result of the lack of heat, Ms. Jacobs bought an electric heater for her

apartment, which has driven up her electricity bills by more than $30 each month.

200. Even when Defendants complete repairs, they do not address the underlying

conditions causing the repair issues. For instance, Defendants’ agents applied a patchwork repair

to a leak in the hallway, but this reoccurring leak continues to return, indicating that it is the roof

that needs repair. Defendants also painted over Ms. Jacobs’s bedroom wall when she complained

about water damage resulting from a leaking drain pipe outside of her bedroom.


Ingrid Alexander, 599 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 1A

201. For over six years and currently, Ms. Alexander’s apartment has been

deteriorating. The following conditions currently exist in her apartment: there is a roach

infestation and one of the windows in her living room is drafty as there is no insulation.


have existed in Ms. Alexander’s apartment. Her oven was inoperable for a full year, her

refrigerator was defective, one of the electrical outlets in her home was defective, and there was



46 of 62

mold in the bathroom. Her apartment has also been infested with rat and mouse infestations in

the past six years.

203. Ms. Alexander has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet


204. Ms. Alexander has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently two open violations recorded for Ms. Alexander’s apartment on HPD

website, and they are both hazardous.

205. Even when Defendants complete repairs, they are often shoddy and incomplete,

and do not address the underlying conditions causing the repair issues. For instance, when Ms.

Alexander’s refrigerator broke, Defendants brought her another refrigerator which contained a

large rat, which escaped into her apartment before she was able to trap it.

206. As a result of the front door always being unlocked, Ms. Alexander fears for her

safety when she returns home after her work as a home health aide, after 9 pm or later.

207. Defendants intend to cause Ms. Alexander to vacate her Building or waive her

rights under the lease, and their actions and inactions have invaded Ms. Alexander’s interest in

the private use and enjoyment of her apartment, and that invasion is intentional, unreasonable in

character, and caused by Defendants’ conduct in acting or failing to act.

Ray Elvy, 599 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 3C

208. For over six years and currently, Ms. Elvy’s apartment has deteriorated. The

following conditions currently exist in his apartment: mold growing in the apartment, a mouse

infestation, a water leak in the bathroom ceiling, mold, an oven that works inconsistently, and a

rotting wall and floor in the living room.



47 of 62


have existed in Mr. Elvy’s apartment. There have been leaks in his daughter’s bedroom and in

the kitchen, there are unstable floors, the paint has been defective on the walls and the ceiling,

there was a defective countertop near the sink in the kitchen, the sink cabinet’s door was

defective, there were missing floor tiles, the walls were crumbling and the bathtub would not

drain. Mr. Elvy’s apartment has been plagued by mouse infestations on and off for years.

210. As a result of the lack of heat, Mr. Elvy bought an electric heater for his

apartment, which has driven up his electricity bills by more than $30 per month each winter.

211. Mr. Elvy has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet


212. Mr. Elvy has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments. There

are currently 13 open violations recorded for the Mr. Elvy’s apartment on the HPD website,

including one that is “immediately hazardous” and nine that are hazardous.

213. Defendant W. Shasho has laughed at Mr. Elvy when he has addressed the repair

issues with him and has cast doubt on City authorities’ willingness to help Mr. Elvy. When Mr.

Elvy has informed Defendant W. Shasho that his home is in need of repair, Defendant W.

Shasho informed Mr. Elvy, “[i]t is a shit building and you are still here. You guys must love this

shit.” When Mr. Elvy informed Defendant W. Shasho that he plans to call 311, Defendant W.

Shasho has directly questioned the City’s willingness to do anything by declaring in response,

“what are they going to do?”

214. Defendants typically only complete repairs when they are ordered to do so by

court, and even when they do the repairs when directed by the court, the underlying conditions

causing the repair issues are not addressed. For instance, Defendants’ workers typically paint



48 of 62

over the mold in Mr. Elvy’s apartment, but they do nothing else to abate the underlying

conditions causing the mold. And when Defendants’ workers repair the leaks in Mr. Elvy’s

apartment, they merely patch the ceiling, but they do not repair the faulty roof or the leak-

causing condition in the fourth-floor apartment above Mr. Elvy’s.

Jessie Levandov, 599 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 4B

215. For over six years and currently, Ms. Levandov’s apartment has been

deteriorating. The following conditions currently exist in their apartment: there is a mold

infestation, water damage on the bedroom ceiling, a reoccurring leak in the bathroom ceiling,

and a mouse infestation.


have existed in Ms. Levanov’s apartment. Ms. Levandov’s apartment has been deteriorating.

There was a steady leak coming through the bathroom ceiling. Like the other Plaintiffs, Ms.

Levandov has had inconsistent heat and hot water. For seven months in 2013, in the middle of

the winter, Ms. Levandov did not have any hot water. It was not until Ms. Levanov took

Defendants to Housing Court, that her hot water was restored, but even then the fix was

temporary.

217. Ms. Levandov has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet


218. Defendants typically only complete repairs when they are ordered to do so by

court. And even when they are ordered to complete repairs by the court, Defendants fail to

address the underlying conditions causing the repair issues. For instance, Defendants put a board

up in the closet to cover the mold but did not actually rid the closet of the mold. In regard to the



49 of 62

leak in the bathroom ceiling, Defendants applied patchwork repairs consistently for years before

finally paying for roofers.

219. As a result of the lack of heat, Ms. Phillips bought an electric heater for her

apartment, which has driven up her electricity bills by more than $30 per month each winter.

220. Ms. Levanov has also alerted city agencies to the conditions in their apartments.

There are currently five open violations recorded for the Ms. Levanov’s apartment on the HPD

website, including three that are hazardous.

Gretelle Phillips, 599 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment 3B

221. For over six years and currently, Ms. Phillips’s apartment has been deteriorating.

The following conditions exist in the apartment: Ms. Phillips’s apartment is currently infested

with roaches and mice, and has been infested for six years, there is a leak in the hallway ceiling,

the electrical breaker is defective, the electrical outlets throughout the apartment spark and burn

electrical cords to Ms. Phillips’s appliances.

222. In the bathroom, the door is defective, the bathroom’s radiator is missing, the

bathtub is damaged, and the heat riser is inoperable.

223. In Ms. Phillips’s kitchen, the ceiling has been leaking off and on for six years.


have existed in Ms. Phillips’s apartment. In Ms. Phillips’s bedroom there is a leak in the ceiling.

There is only one electrical outlet in the bedroom. On one occasion, the outlet exploded.

225. In Ms. Phillips’s bathroom, the ceiling used to be falling, and the toilet used to be

damaged and leaking.

226. In Ms. Phillips’s living room, the ceiling is falling and there is water damage. It

has had leaks and stains for about six years. The floor in the living room is decaying.



50 of 62

227. In the hallway, there are holes in the wall, and when Ms. Phillips dusts near the

hole, dust and dirt from the wall fall into the hallway. There are missing tiles on the floor.

228. For the past six years, Ms. Phillips’s apartment has been deteriorating. In 2018,

there was a leak in the bathroom, and the water spread from the bathroom to the bedroom to the

hallway. More than six years ago, Defendants provided Ms. Phillips with a stove to replace an

inoperable one in her apartment. Mice and roaches were running in and out of the stove at the

point when it was installed in her apartment. In the hallway, the front door was falling off the

hinges.

229. As a result of the lack of heat, Ms. Phillips bought an electric heater for her

apartment, which has driven up her electricity bills by more than $30 per month each winter.

230. Ms. Phillips has informed Defendants of the conditions indicated above, yet

Defendants have failed to complete the repairs. And even when they are ordered to complete

repairs by the court, Defendants fail to address the underlying conditions causing the repair

issues.

231. On multiple occasions, Ms. Phillips and her husband have been forced to repair

conditions on their own or hire contractors when Defendants failed to address the conditions they

brought to their attention. They have incurred thousands of dollars in expenses as a result of

these repairs. For instance, after Defendants failed to repair the Phillips’ floor, Ms. Phillips and

her husband paid for floor replacement. This work cost the Phillips about $400 in labor costs,

and hundreds more in materials.

F. Plaintiffs Have Been Harmed by Defendants’ Actions and Inactions

232. Plaintiffs suffer from a constant feeling of stress and anxiety as a result of the

conditions described above. Every time Plaintiffs complain about one issue, Defendants do



51 of 62

something else that aims to interfere with their enjoyment of their apartment, and/or aims to

bother, annoy or harass them. Plaintiffs feels tired and frustrated. Plaintiffs wish to end

Defendants’ campaign of harassment.

233. John Anthony Berry. Mr. Berry has suffered as a result of the unsafe and

unsanitary conditions in his Building and in his apartment. He fell on a broken and loose stair in

the common area, resulting in injury, stress, and feelings of helplessness.

234. As a result of the lack of heat and hot water, Mr. Berry has to boil a pot of water

in order to make the apartment warm. The prolonged exposure to the steam from the boiling

water makes Mr. Berry feel sick and lightheaded.

235. In or around August 2018, Mr. Berry’s Section 8 was terminated as a result of

Defendants failure to make many of the conditions listed above. Prior to the termination of

Section 8, NYCHA sent Defendants multiple notices alerting them to the conditions in the

apartment. Yet despite these notices, Defendants failed to make the required repairs and Mr.

Berry was almost rendered homeless as a result.

236. Prior to retaining counsel and bringing a Housing Part case to force Defendants to

complete the required repairs in Mr. Berry’s apartment, Mr. Berry spent hours travelling back

and forth to the NYCHA Section 8 office. He lost hours of sleep. He worried about the

possibility of losing his long-term rent-stabilized home.

237. Ryan Matthews. When Defendants sued Mr. Matthews in a frivolous Housing

Court case, Mr. Matthews felt intense anxiety. Despite paying his rent on time every month, he

feels as though his housing is insecure. He has been greatly saddened watching Defendants drive

his neighbors out of their apartments. He is constantly on edge because he does not know what

his landlord is going to do next, nor who is going to be affected.



52 of 62

238. Defendants have repeatedly told Mr. Matthews, who wishes to stay in his long-

term rent-stabilized apartment, that he is “free to move out.” In each of these interactions, Mr.

Matthews has clearly proclaimed that that he desires to stay in his apartment. Yet Defendants

have persisted in trying to push Mr. Matthews out of his long-term rent-stabilized home.

239. As a result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, Mr. Matthews cannot enjoy his

apartment. He is concerned about his safety. He has nightmares stemming from experiences with

Defendants. The thought of W. Shasho entering his apartment makes him feel unsafe. He can

feel his blood pressure rising, and feels tightness in his chest. The lack of repairs is also

detrimental for Mr. Matthews. The electricity constantly shorts out preventing him from working

from home, and completing household activities such as cooking and reading.

240. The Mitchells. As a result of Defendants’ actions, the Mitchells have suffered. At

times, Defendants’ attempts to push the Mitchells out of their long-term rent-stabilized apartment

have brought Ms. Mitchell to tears. She finds it dehumanizing to have to beg the landlord for a

counter-signed lease. These practices bring her heart ache, and she resents the fact that

Defendant W. Shasho tries to make her feel like she is the only one complaining. When

Defendants tried attempted to overcharge the Mitchels, Ms. Mitchel had to travel back and forth

to the DHCR office in order to challenge the alleged overcharge.

241. Elizabeth Hayes. Ms. Hayes has feelings of intense anxiety from waking up

startled as a result of the disturbances caused by Defendants’ workman Q. She fears him, and

fears that he could hurt her or her family. When she hears his voice, even in the middle of the

day, she feels fear. She has feelings of discomfort and insecurity when she sees Defendants

pushing out long-time tenants. She very much wants the Building to return to a place where



53 of 62

people raise their families, and it causes her anxiety to see that Defendants have turned it into an

illegal hotel operation.

242. Ingrid Alexander. Ms. Alexander has lost hours of sleep, including during the

work week as a result of the front security door of the Building being unlocked. During the

course of the night, the door swings open and slams shut. Strangers with unknown background

loiter in the hallways and lobbies. Ms. Alexander, who works in the evenings as a home health

aide to an Autistic child, fears for her safety upon return home each night.

243. In or around October 2018, Mr. Alexander’s Section 8 was terminated as a result

of Defendants’ failure to make many of the conditions listed above. Ms. Alexander was at risk of

homelessness. Owner Defendants only addressed Ms. Alexander’s repair needs when court-

ordered access dates were set. And, even then, Owner Defendant did not certify to NYCHA

Section 8 that the issues were addressed until after Brooklyn Legal Services informed them that

Section 8 would not pay them rent until they did so. If Ms. Alexander permanently loses her

Section 8 subsidy, she will be unable to remain in her long-term rent-stabilized home.

244. Ray Elvy. Mr. Elvy suffers from the constant stress of living under these

conditions and raising his adolescent daughter in these conditions. When Mr. Elvy asked if he

and his adolescent daughter might be able to move units within the Building, Defendant W.

Shasho laughed at him. Defendants’ practices make Mr. Elvy feel like a second-class citizen, and

completely helpless. As a result of years of persistent mold in his apartment, Mr. Elvy’s daughter

suffered more asthma attacks, and Mr. Elvy had to take her to emergency room on multiple

occasions in the past six years in order to ensure her asthma was treated.

245. Gretelle Phillips. As a result of the lack of a security lock on the front door, Ms.

Phillips does not feel safe and she often is unable to sleep. She often sees unrecognizable faces in



54 of 62

the Building come and go from the Airbnb units, which adds to her feelings of insecurity. She is

aware that one of her neighbors was mugged outside of her Building, and she fears that the

individuals coming and going in her Building may harm her or her husband.

246. Even when the front door locks, individuals and groups buzz her door, resulting

in a disturbance of Ms. Phillips’s enjoyment of peace in her apartment. She assumes this is

because the intercom often is non-functional. Ms. Phillips is unaware of the identities of the

groups and individuals who ring her doorbell. The light in the Building hallway is often out, and

that, combined with the door failing to close, scares Ms. Phillips.

247. As a result of the noise from construction in her building at all hours, Ms. Phillips,

who is 74, and her husband, Mr. Phillips, who is 83, are unable to rest and take naps.

248. Jessie Levanov. Ms. Levanov feels as though she is constantly “gaslighted” by

Defendants who deny that her apartment or Building needs repair, and that the other issues

including the illegal hotel operation and construction are issues. She feels exhausted just fighting

for basic human rights to heat and hot water. She had to take numerous days off from work in

order to bring Defendants to Housing Court, and even after that, many of the unsafe and

unsanitary conditions in her apartment remain.

249. Defendants intend for Plaintiffs to vacate their Buildings or waive their rights

under their leases, and their actions and inactions have invaded Plaintiffs’ interest in the private

use and enjoyment of their apartment, and that invasion is intentional, unreasonable in character

and caused by Defendants’ conduct in acting or failing to act.



55 of 62

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

HARASSMENT

250. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the preceding

paragraphs.

251. Defendants have engaged in harassment as defined by the New York Tenant Act,

N.Y.C. Admin Code 27-2004(a)(48) against Plaintiffs in violation of N.Y.C. Admin Code 27-

2005 by engaging in acts and/or omissions that are intended to cause Plaintiffs to vacate the

subject premises or to surrender their rights in relation to their occupancy of the subject

premises. Specifically, Defendants have engaged in acts to cause Plaintiffs, who are lawfully

entitled to possession, to vacate their apartments and to surrender their rights as rent-stabilized

tenants.

252. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and

actual and punitive damages as prescribed by the N.Y.C. Admin. Code and the Rent Stabilization

Law and its implementing regulations, including the issuance of a Class C immediately

hazardous violation, and the issuance of an order restraining Defendants from violating

subdivision d of section 27-2005, directing Defendants to ensure that no further violation occurs,

and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of no less than $2,000 and not more $10,000 per

apartment.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

PRIVATE NUISANCE


paragraphs.

254. Defendants have engaged in acts that amount to a private nuisance in that they

have invaded Plaintiffs’ interest in the private use and enjoyment of their apartments, and that



56 of 62

invasion is intentional, unreasonable in character, and caused by Defendants’ conduct in acting

or failing to act.

255. Defendants have conducted illegal renovations within the Buildings, operated and

maintained permanent residential units for short-term stays, including stays of less than 30 days,

failed to repair the security locks on the Buildings’ front doors and to repair the intercom system,

creating significant security risks in buildings not equipped to handle the security problems

associated with transient occupancy and a degradation in the quality and comfort of the subject

apartments and Buildings for Plaintiffs created by noise, filth and excessive traffic of unknown

and constantly changing individuals entering the units and Buildings.

256. Owner Defendants’ illegal renovations within the Buildings, and their

employment of extraordinarily destructive workmen, and the activities as described above,

degrade the quality and comfort of the subject apartments and Buildings for Plaintiffs.

257. Owner Defendants’ failure to maintain the Buildings’ common areas and

individual apartments, and their failure to repair, replace, alter, improve or otherwise remedy the

defects in the Buildings and apartments has substantially and materially deprived Plaintiffs of the

beneficial use of their premises.

258. Although on numerous occasions Plaintiffs requested Owner Defendants remedy

the problems making the premises unfit for habitation, Defendants did nothing to correct the

problems and, in fact, took the position that there were no problems. These problems continue to

recur.

259. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Owner Defendants will continue their

illegal activities and will absorb the costs of any fines and penalties imposed upon them as

routine operating expenses. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs will be forced to continue to bear the burden of



57 of 62

living in unsafe conditions.

260. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

261. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment against Owner

Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert

with them, permanently restraining the above described common law private nuisance, which has

thus far gone on unabated within the Buildings.

262. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because of the

knowing and ongoing common law nuisance created, maintained and continued by Defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

ELECTRONIC BILLING


paragraphs.

264. Section 235-g of New York’s Real Property Law provides:

A landlord shall not require a lessee or tenant to use an electronic billing and/or payment system as the only method for the payment of rent. A landlord shall not assess any fee or other charge for a lessee or tenant that chooses not to use an electronic billing and/or payment system.

265. Owner Defendants have repeatedly violated RPL 235-g by mandating that

Plaintiffs pay through an online portal or via the convenience store 7-Eleven. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to cease from requiring tenants use an

electronic billing and/or payment system as the only method of rent.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATIONS OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY


paragraphs.

267. Because of the acts complained of above, Owner Defendants have violated New



58 of 62

York Real Property Law 235-b.

268. Owner Defendants have failed to maintain the subject premises in a habitable and

usable fashion.

269. Owner Defendants have failed to maintain the property in accord with the uses

reasonably intended by Plaintiffs.

270. Owner Defendants had notice of each of these conditions, but either failed to

correct them or allowed them to remain uncorrected for months at a time, as some of these

conditions existed as far back as 2013.

271. Owner Defendants’ failures have led to the violation of the Implied Warranty of

Habitability, codified in Section 235-b of the New York Real Property Law. Pursuant to Section

235-b of the New York Real Property Law, every landlord is required to ensure that the subject

premises and the common areas fulfill three the requirements of three covenants: (1) that the

premises are “fit for human habitation”, (2) that the premises are fit for “the uses reasonably

intended by the parties”, and (3) that the occupants will not be subjected to conditions that are

“dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety.”

272. As a result, Owner Defendants have caused the value of Plaintiffs’ apartments to

be diminished, and Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, including an abatement of the rent

for each month in which the conditions existed which represents a diminution in the value of the

premises in an amount to be determined at trial.

273. The structural and unit deficits in the Buildings and Owner Defendants’ refusal to

remedy them forces Plaintiffs to either operate electric heaters or endure very cold temperatures.

Defendants’ breach of the warranty of habitability thereby dramatically drives up tenants’

electricity bills.



59 of 62

274. Owner Defendants have evidenced a complete indifference to their civil

obligations and have failed to correct the conditions described above despite repeated requests by

Plaintiffs even after HPD and DOB issued repeated violations. Currently, there are 207 open

violations in the Buildings.

275. Owner Defendants have acted with wanton disregard and endangered the health

and safety of Plaintiffs and their families by failing to address the complained of conditions.

276. As a result of Owner Defendants’ complete indifference to their civil obligations,

Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in excess of $25,000

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

ATTORNEY’S FEES


paragraphs.

278. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to their leases, the

provisions of the Rent Stabilization and Code, and the provisions of RPL 234.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that a judgment and order be issued:

1. With respect to the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin Code 27-2005:

a. Directing Owner Defendants to pay statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, actual

and punitive and damages on Plaintiffs as prescribed by the N.Y.C. Admin. Code and the Rent Stabilization Law and its implementing regulations, including the issuance of Class C immediately hazardous violation; and

b. Restraining Owner Defendants from violating subdivision d of section 27-

2005, and directing Defendants to ensure that no further violation occurs; and

c. Imposing a civil penalty in the amount of no less than two-thousand dollars and not more than ten-thousand dollars per apartment N.Y.C. Admin Code 27-2005;



60 of 62

2. With respect to the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to the common law

doctrine of private nuisance:

a. Permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them, from conducting, maintaining or in any way permitting the common law private nuisance described herein; and

b. Awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be set by the court, and punitive damages in the amount of no less than $100,000 for the willful and wanton perpetuation of a common law private nuisance by Defendants;

3. With respect to the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to Section 235-g of the New

York Real Property Law:

a. Permanently enjoining Owner Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them, from requiring tenants use an electronic billing and/or payment system as the only method of payment of rent; and

4. With respect to the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION , pursuant to New York Real

Property Law 235-b:

a. Entering judgment in an amount to be determined at trial for the diminution in the value of the subject premises; and

b. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ray Elvy, Ryan Matthews, Lara Jacobs,

Jessie Levanov, and Gretelle Phillips for overpayment in electricity charges due to their use of electric heaters; and

c. Entering judgment in favor of all Plaintiffs for the loss of use of significant

portions of rented space, that are a direct result of Owner Defendants’ breach of the warranty of habitability established by New York Real Property Law 235-b;

5. With respect to the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION, awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to Plaintiffs’ leases, the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the provisions of RPL 234;

6. Awarding punitive damages and interest accrued;

7. Awarding costs and disbursements of this action; and

8. Granting any such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.



61 of 62

Dated: April 16, 2019 Brooklyn, NY

By: /S/

Catherine Frizell, Esq. BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES Logan Schiff, Esq. Pavita Krishnaswamy, Esq. Ed Josephson, Esq. 105 Court Street, 4th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 237 – 5574



62 of 62

Date post:	11-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

zhNGu3yzWPu PLUS IedtQ==&system=prod...Multiple Dwelling Law and the Rent Stabilization Code and...

Documents