Trial Required on Claim for Rent in Building Without Certificate of Occupancy

March 1, 2005

LVT Number: 17940

(Decision submitted by Gary D. Friedman of the New Hyde Park law firm of Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case because the building didn't have a certificate of occupancy. Landlord claimed that the building didn't need a C of O. The court ruled that a trial was needed to decide the facts. If the building was occupied in violation of the C of O requirements of MDL Section 301, landlord couldn't sue for nonpayment of rent.

(Decision submitted by Gary D. Friedman of the New Hyde Park law firm of Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case because the building didn't have a certificate of occupancy. Landlord claimed that the building didn't need a C of O. The court ruled that a trial was needed to decide the facts. If the building was occupied in violation of the C of O requirements of MDL Section 301, landlord couldn't sue for nonpayment of rent. HPD violations indicated that a C of O was required for the building because it was vacant for more than 60 days after a 1989 fire. But landlord claimed that the HPD violations were in error. A trial was needed to determine the facts.

122-124 Lexington Ave. Corp. v. Gonzalez: Index No. 74202/04 (Civ. Ct. NY 1/19/05; Schneider, J) [7-pg. doc.]

Topics

More like this