From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 12, 1991
171 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).


Plaintiffs are tenants in an interim multiple dwelling owned by defendant, for which there is no residential certificate of occupancy for the building. The court nevertheless directed plaintiffs to pay monthly use and occupancy to their attorney in escrow during the pendency of this action.

Plaintiffs contend that past use and occupancy should be refunded to them, and that they should not have to pay future use and occupancy because of defendant's failure to have a certificate of occupancy. Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 provides that an owner who has not obtained a certificate of occupancy may not collect rent for the period that the building does not have a valid certificate of occupancy (see, County Dollar Corp. v Douglas, 160 A.D.2d 537, republished 161 A.D.2d 370). Respondents argue that the procedures for legalizing an interim dwelling as set forth in Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 are controlling.

Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 (1) (i) (D) requires inter alia that the owner "take all reasonable and necessary action to obtain a certificate of occupancy". Despite the provisions of Multiple Dwelling Law § 302, and despite any possible contrary interpretation of our recent decision in County Dollar (supra), we find that compliance with Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 is sufficient to entitle the owner to collect rent or use and occupancy. Here, the owner filed an alteration application and architectural plans with the Buildings Department, filed a narrative statement with the Loft Board, attended the conference of the New York City Loft Board, and made a payment to the Business Relocation Assistance Corporation. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied, as a question of fact exists as to whether the landlord took all "reasonable and necessary action" to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Under the circumstances, the direction that use and occupancy be paid to counsel was proper (see, Corris v 129 Front Co., 85 A.D.2d 176, 180).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 12, 1991
171 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp.

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN CROMWELL et al., Appellants, v. LE SANNOM BUILDING CORP.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 12, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 41

Citing Cases

In re 49 Bleecker Inc.

Nor did the Debtor offer proof as to what efforts had been made to obtain a permanent certificate of…

MADELINE D'ANTHONY ENTERS., INC. v. SOKOLOWSKY

MDL § 284(1)(i). If they complied with that timetable, they were entitled to collect rent, even if they had…