Matter of Edwards v. MurdockMatter of Edwards v. Murdock
Lead Opinion
Bеfore the petitioner acquired Ms leasehold of the lodging house in quеstion, the erection therein of the so-called cuMcles had been completed pursuant to plans that had been approved by thе Department of Buildings and a certificate of occupancy had been issued by the Commissioner of Buildings. No claim is made that tMs certificate of occupancy was not a “ certificate ” in the sense of section 301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 61-a). Section 301 provides: “No tenеment house shall hereafter be occupied in whole or in part fоr human habitation until the issuance of a certificate by the department charged with the enforcement of the tenement house law or of tMs chapter that said building conforms in all respects to the requirements of thе tenement house law or of tMs chapter. No building hereafter construсted as or altered or converted into a multiple dwelling shall be oсcupied in whole or in part for human habitation until the issuance of a сertificate by the department charged with the enforcement of tMs chapter that said building conforms in all respects to the requirements of tMs сhapter. Such certificate shall be issued witMn ten days after written application therefor if said building at the date of such application shаll be entitled thereto. Such a certificate, or the record in the dеpartment aforesaid that such a certificate has been issued оr a statement signed by the head of such department that such a certificate has been issued, may be relied upon by every person who in goоd faith purchases a multiple dwelling or who in good faith lends money upon the security of mortgage covering such dwelling. Whenever any person has so relied upon such certificate, no claim that such dwelling had not, priоr to the issuance of such certificate, conformed in all respects to the provisions of this chapter shall be made against such pеrson or against the interest of such person in a multiple dwelling to which such а certificate applies or concerning which such a statement has been issued(Italics supplied.) Petitioner was a “ purchaser ” witMn the intent and meaning of tMs section 301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. (See Real Prop. Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 50], § 290, subd. 2.)
*533 It follows that the Board of Standards and Appeals had no authority to revoke as against the petitioner the certificate of occupancy issued to his predеcessor in interest by the Commissioner of Buildings. The above-stressed words of seсtion 301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law are so explicit as to exclude any lаtitude of interpretation. Accordingly, section 646 (g) of the Charter of the City of New York (effective January 1, 1938) must be taken to apply only in cases where there has been no reliance by a purchaser or mortgagee upon a certificate that there has been complianсe with the law.
The orders should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting); I dissent upon the grounds that (1) there is neither allegation nor proof of good faith on the part of the purchaser, a close relative of the seller, so as to make applicable thе provisions of section 301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 61a), and (2) the doctrine of estoppel may never be invoked, by reason of unauthorized acts of its officers or agents, to prevent a state or municipality from properly exercising its
police power. (People
v.
Santa Clara Lumber Co.,
Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears and Lewis, JJ., concur in per curiam opinion; Conway, J., dissents in opinion; Lehman, Ch. J., taking no part.
Orders reversed, etc.