You are here: / / UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE...

UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subtenants (respondents), pursuant to the Multiple Dwelling Law, could not collect rent from the lessee (petitioner) for the period during which there was no certificate of occupancy:

​

Petitioner was the net lessee of the third floor of a six-story building, a de facto multiple dwelling; the net lease provided, inter alia, that there was no permanent certificate of occupancy for either the building or the demised premises. In April 2013, petitioner brought this proceeding alleging that respondents, its subtenants, had failed to pay residential use and occupancy since January 2013. Affording the relevant statutory language its natural and ordinary meaning … , we conclude that the proceeding must be dismissed because petitioner was not entitled to collect rent from respondents.

For purposes of the Multiple Dwelling Law, an “owner” is broadly defined to include a “lessee” … . Respondents’ unit constituted a “dwelling” under the Multiple Dwelling Law [“any building or structure or portion thereof which is occupied in whole or in part as the home, residence or sleeping place of one or more human beings” (Multiple Dwelling Law 4[4]). The owner of a “dwelling or structure … occupied in whole or in part for human habitation in violation of [§ 301]” may not recover rent for the period during which there is no certificate of occupancy for “such premises” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 302[1][b]). Nor may the owner maintain an action or special proceeding for possession of the premises for nonpayment of “such rent” (id.). Thus, petitioner, as owner of respondents’ dwelling, was precluded from charging respondents rent or other remuneration while the building lacked a certificate of occupancy for residential use … . Matter of 49 Bleecker, Inc. v Gathien, 2018 NY Slip Op 00476, First Dept 1-25-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (LANDLORD-TENANT, MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW,  LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))/SUBTENANTS (UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal
WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD’S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTION HAS MERIT OR AN EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO FILE IN SEEKING AN EXTENSION TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
RENOVATION WORK ON DEFENDANTS’ TOWNHOUSE RENDERED PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE, WHICH WAS NEXT DOOR, UNINHABITABLE; A LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH GRANTED DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE INCLUDED A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WHICH WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION SOUGHT SOME EQUITABLE RELIEF BUT PRIMARILY SOUGHT MONEY DAMAGES; THEREFORE PLANTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LANDLORD BROUGHT EJECTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RENT REGULATED TENANT FOR... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR,...