petitioner pro se.
respondent pro se.
Rolando T. Acosta, J.
This summary proceeding, tried before the Court on June 21, 2001, arises from petitioner husband's claim that his wife, respondent,
locked him out of the apartment they shared in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-521. Petitioner seeks a judgment awarding and restoring him to possession of the subject premises pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10).
The proceeding requires the Court to determine whether a spouse who has been locked out of the marital apartment because of allegations of family disruption may properly avail himself of a summary proceeding in Housing Court under RPAPL 713 (10), seeking restoration to the subject premises.
At trial, petitioner testified that on May 23, 2001, he and his wife had a " verbal dispute," that his wife called the police, and that when the police arrived at the apartment they told him to leave the apartment to " cool off." Petitioner further testified that although he complied with the request of the police, when he returned to his apartment, his property was strewn outside of the apartment door in the hallway, the locks had been changed and respondent would not let him in the apartment.
In support of his claims, petitioner introduced into evidence a " New York State Domestic Incident Report," which memorialized his complaints. Petitioner admitted that he and his wife had engaged in prior similar disputes which required police intervention in the past and that on at least one occasion in 1998 an order of protection had been issued in respondent's favor, barring petitioner from the marital home for one year.
Petitioner also called the managing agent of the subject premises as a witness. The agent testified that petitioner was a tenant of the apartment at the time of the alleged lock-out and was listed as the " head of household" on HUD's " Certification of Compliance" form, which was signed by respondent in July 2000.
Respondent, on the other hand, testified that petitioner had not been in the apartment for some time and that she refused to let him " move back" in the apartment on May 23, 2001, because petitioner told their son that he was a gang member of the " Bloods," that women belong under his " feet," and that women should not be " respected." Although respondent continues to refuse to permit petitioner into the apartment, respondent denied that she ...