County Dollar Corp. v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 19 April 1990
• Citation: 556 N.Y.S.2d 533,160 A.D.2d 537
• Parties: , 161 A.D.2d 370 COUNTY DOLLAR CORPORATION, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, v. Elise DOUGLAS et al., Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 533

556 N.Y.S.2d 533

160 A.D.2d 537, 161 A.D.2d 370

COUNTY DOLLAR CORPORATION, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, v. Elise DOUGLAS et al., Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

April 19, 1990.

As Amended May 10, 1990.

G.M. Rosenberg, for petitioner-landlord-appellant.

H. Brodie, G.L. Reichbach and A. Rhine, for respondents-tenants-respondents.

Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER and WALLACH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department (Stanley S. Ostrau, P.J., Stanley Parness, Edith Miller, JJ.), entered July 18, 1989, which affirmed an Order, Civil Court, New York County (Bruce J. Gould, J.) entered May 18, 1988, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, owner of an interim multiple dwelling, commenced non-payment proceedings against loft tenants. The Civil Court dismissed the petitions at the close of petitioner's case for failure to comply with an owner's obligation pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 284(1)(i). Petitioner appealed and the Appellate Term affirmed on the basis of the majority opinion in 902 Assoc. v. Total Picture Creative Services, 144 Misc.2d 316, 318, 547 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Ostrau, P.J., dissenting). We agree.

Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (the "Loft Law") balances the interests of loft tenants and owners. While the statute allows owners to collect rent despite the lack of an appropriate certificate of occupancy, it specifically conditions that relief upon compliance by the owner with the Loft Law (MDL § 285). The statute sets forth such obligations to legalize a covered loft building (MDL § 284). Petitioner contends that a non-payment proceeding may be maintained upon a showing of compliance with the registration requirement (MDL § 284[2] and a reasonable attempt to comply with the four step legalization procedure of MDL § 284(1)(i). An attempt is insufficient, although we are informed that subsequent to the non-jury trial, additional actions were taken by the petitioner-landlord which could establish compliance, and we do not foreclose a further proceeding to so establish. An owner must prove compliance with legalization requirements in order to maintain a non-payment proceeding (Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Board, NYLJ, August 15, 1984, p. 11, col. 1 [Sup.Ct., NY Co.]; Cobra Resources, Inc. v. Dumpl, Inc., 138 Misc.2d 91, 522 N.Y.S.2d 433; Greeting Card Publishers, Inc. v. Spencer, 141 Misc.2d 800, 534 N.Y.S.2d 636; 902 Associates Ltd. v. Total Picture Creative Services, Inc., supra.) Strict adherence is...