C of O Violation Doesn't Prevent Landlord from Pursuing Case

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial, claiming that the building had no valid Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) and that landlord therefore was barred from maintaining the proceeding under Multiple Dwelling Law Section 302. The court ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, and the case was reopened. A trial was needed to determine the facts. The building was constructed in the early 1900s, when no C of O was required. There was insufficient proof that 1981 alteration work done in the building basement adversely affected the habitability of the structure or rendered tenant's occupancy of his first-floor apartment criminal or illegal. Without this proof, tenant couldn't rely on the fact that DOB found that the basement alterations required a C of O and that none had been issued yet. 

24th Street Holding LLC v. Martinez: 2013 NY Slip Op 23440, 2013 WL 6800887 (App. T. 1 Dept.; 12/24/13; Hunter Jr., JP, Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ)