The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, recently ruled on a case involving the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and a property owner, 724 40th St LLC. The court dismissed HPD's request for access to a vacant apartment to conduct emergency repairs related to lead paint violations. This decision affects how housing code violations in vacant units are handled, potentially impacting landlords and tenants across New York City.
The case, officially titled Department of Housing Preservation and Development v. 724 40th St LLC, was filed under Index No. LT-317139-25/KI on March 8, 2026. The ruling was made by Judge Enedina Pilar Sanchez. The dispute arose when HPD sought an order to access Apartment 1B in a building managed by 724 40th St LLC to perform emergency repairs after identifying lead-based paint hazards.
The Department of Housing Preservation and Development is responsible for enforcing housing codes in New York City. In this case, HPD claimed that lead-based paint violations were identified in Apartment 1B on January 23, 2025. The violations included issues with closet door frames and window frames, as well as presumed lead paint on a wall. The apartment was reported as vacant, and the property owner stated they planned to address the necessary repairs.
During the court proceedings, the managing agent for 724 40th St LLC, who appeared as a pro se litigant, argued that since the apartment was vacant and posed no risk to occupants, the request for access should be dismissed. The managing agent provided documentation showing that the apartment was unoccupied and that there were no minor children at risk of exposure to lead paint.
In her ruling, Judge Sanchez acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the occupancy status of Apartment 1B. She noted that the owner had indicated a willingness to perform the necessary repairs. The court stated, "While there seems to be no dispute as to the occupancy status of Apartment 1B, and that there is no apparent risk of harm to any occupant, adult or minor, Respondent credibly represents that the needed work will be done."
The court also pointed out that HPD's argument for access did not sufficiently justify the need for an order when the owner was already prepared to address the violations. Judge Sanchez emphasized the importance of a practical relationship between enforcement actions and the facts of the case, stating, "There needs to be a practical relationship between the enforcement actions sought here and the facts and circumstances of the case."
Ultimately, the court granted the motion to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice. This means that while the current case was dismissed, HPD can still pursue action if the property owner fails to correct the violations. The court ordered that the owner must provide proof of compliance to HPD within 90 days of the ruling. If the owner fails to do so, HPD may file a new petition for appropriate relief.
This ruling has significant implications for landlords and property owners in New York City. It clarifies that while housing code violations must be addressed, the process may differ when dealing with vacant units. The decision indicates that property owners can take responsibility for repairs without the need for court intervention, provided there is no immediate risk to tenants.
Moving forward, this case may influence how similar disputes are handled in the future. Landlords may feel more empowered to manage repairs independently, especially in vacant units, while HPD may need to adjust its approach to enforcement in these situations. The ruling also raises questions about the balance of authority between housing agencies and property owners when it comes to maintaining safe living conditions.
As for what’s next, the property owner must comply with the court's order and provide proof of the completed repairs to HPD. If they fail to do so, HPD has the option to file a new petition for relief. There are currently no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.