HIT WITH $275K IN CIVIL PENALTIES
Because it failed to provide hot water at 120 degrees, as required by local law, the Kings County Civil Court, after a non-jury trial, hit a landlord with $275,000 in civil penalties.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that because the outcome was supported by such evidence as “inspections, HPD reports, and testimony,” it was disinclined to disturb the lower court’s determination.
It also concluded that the landlord’s constitutional argument -- that the civil penalties violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment -- was “without merit” because they served a “remedial” rather than “punitive” purpose (since they were intended “to coerce property owners to comply with housing maintenance standards”).
The judgment was thus affirmed.
Now how's that for coercive?
# # #
DECISION
Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v 1515 St. Johns Place