Building Had No C of O
LVT Number: 13219
Tenant sued landlord for rent already paid after learning that the building had no C of O. Landlord, in turn, claimed that tenant had interfered with his intended sale of the building by refusing to move out. The sale had been contingent on the building being vacant and the buyer had backed out. The court ruled against both sides. The lack of a C of O isn't a reason for getting a refund of back rent paid under the Multiple Dwelling Law. It's only a basis for withholding future rent payments. Landlord, on the other hand, didn't prove that tenant had intentionally interfered with the sale of the building.
Lupo v. Masone: NYLJ, p. 28, col. 3 (4/14/99) (Civ. Ct. Bronx; Brigantti-Hughes, J)