131 Misc. 2d 429 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1985
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
We are in full accord with the views expressed by the court below. Public policy considerations would preclude estopping landlord from instituting the proceeding, and, in any event, we find nothing in the record which would warrant such an estoppel. As to the findings of fact made by the court, they are supported by the evidence adduced at trial.
Moreover, we agree that the failure to notify tenant of the
We are also aware that landlord, although serving tenant with the 30-day notice of its intention to commence an action on nonprimary residence grounds, did not file a copy of the notice with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal as required by the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations (9 NYCRR 2504.4 [d]). Clearly, where a regulation provides that a summary proceeding may not be commenced until landlord both serves tenant with the required notice and files a copy with the administrative agency, the failure to file with such agency is fatal to landlord’s right to maintain the proceeding (1015 Washington Ave. Mgt. Co. v Blecher, 26 AD2d 648). The Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations, insofar as they concern evictions for certain wrongful acts of the tenant, preclude an eviction proceeding unless there has been both service of the required notice on the tenant and filing with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (9
We incidentally note that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal was empowered to promulgate the regulations (Walton v Krismart Corp., 93 Misc 2d 73).
Di Paola, P. J., Widlitz and Stark, JJ., concur.