1245 Stratford, LLC v. Osboume
2024 NY Slip Op 51562(U)
Civ. Ct. NYC, Bronx Cty.2024Background
- Petitioner (1245 Stratford, LLC), landlord of a rent-stabilized Bronx apartment, sought to evict Respondent (Osboume) for nonpayment of rent totaling over $20,000 for March 2020–September 2022.
- Respondent's initial answer asserted defective service, habitability breach, and after counsel, additional defenses including the landlord’s failure to obtain a valid Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) following illegal building alterations.
- During the suit, a partial payment was made via the COVID-19 Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP), and the case was stayed pending that process; landlord ultimately moved to proceed when ERAP payment did not cure arrears.
- Key factual contention: Respondent presented NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) violations indicating illegal partitioning/subdivision of apartments and creation of single-room occupancy (SRO) units without DOB permits, claimed to trigger a C of O requirement.
- Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing MDL §§ 301/302 prohibit rent recovery/eviction where such violations exist; Petitioner claimed some violations were due to tenants and that corrected SRO violations should allow collection.
- Multiple rounds of motion practice culminated in Respondent’s motion to dismiss and Petitioner’s cross-motion seeking trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May landlord maintain non-payment proceeding despite open DOB violations for illegal alterations/SROs? | Landlord not responsible for illegal alterations; SRO violation since resolved; tenants caused/blocked remedy; public policy requires exception. | MDL § 301/302 bar recovery; open SRO/partition violations; no C of O; landlord remains responsible regardless of tenant interference; rent not recoverable during violation period. | For Osboume: Proceeding dismissed. Statute prohibits rent recovery/eviction for period of noncompliance. |
| Effect of SRO and partition violations on rent recovery | Only unresolved violation at issue is for partitions, which does not warrant dismissal; SRO violation corrected before decision. | Any violation evidencing illegal occupancy or partition bars suit, regardless of eventual correction if open during period sued. | SRO violation during period sued for mandates dismissal, even if later corrected. |
| Applicability of exception where tenants block compliance | Tenant-created obstacles should allow landlord to recover rent; otherwise, tenants could collude to deny rent. | Statute places compliance burden solely on owner; no facts showing collusion or that respondent prevented compliance. | No exception recognized; statutes interpreted strictly per Court of Appeals precedent. |
| Constitutional arguments (takings, due process) | Enforcement would constitute a regulatory taking, violate contract principles, and due process if landlord can never collect rent. | Statute advances legitimate government interest in housing safety; no unconstitutional deprivation. | Constitutional challenge rejected; MDL provisions are valid public welfare regulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chazon, LLC v. Maugenest, 19 NY3d 410 (statute bars rent recovery and eviction for periods of noncompliance with C of O requirements under MDL)
- Matter of GVS Props LLC v. Vargas, 172 AD3d 466 (Chazon applies to all multiple dwellings regardless of Loft Law)
- Matter of 49 Bleecker, Inc. v. Gatien, 157 AD3d 619 (statute strictly bars rent recovery during non-compliance)
- W 48th Holdings LLC v. Eliyahu, [citation="64 Misc 3d 133[A]"] (apartment alterations without C of O require dismissal of landlord's proceeding)
- Caldwell v. Am. Package Co., Inc., 57 AD3d 15 (compliance burden on owner unless tenant actually interferes with legalization efforts)
- Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 84 NY2d 385 (upholds MDL as advancing legitimate state interest and not unconstitutional taking)