Tysons Associates v. Tribeca Audio Research, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1988 |
| Citation | 530 N.Y.S.2d 447,140 Misc.2d 38 |
| Parties | TYSONS ASSOCIATES, Petitioner-Landlord, v. TRIBECA AUDIO RESEARCH INC., Respondent-Tenant, and Richard Messick, The Living Room, Inc., John Doe and Jane Does, and Kevin Teare, Respondents-Undertenants. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Hamburger & Green by Norman Haber, New York City, for petitioner-landlord.
Abrams Lerner Kisseloff Kissin & Lapidus, P.C. by Timothy O'Donnell, New York City, for respondent The Living Room, Inc.
The interesting issue raised in this motion is whether compliance with Multiple Dwelling Law (hereinafter MDL) Section 325 requiring the registration of multiple dwellings with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (hereinafter HPD) or compliance with MDL Section 284 requiring, among other obligations, the registration of interim multiple dwellings with the Loft Board, must be alleged in a petition to recover commercial premises.
This is a commercial non-payment proceeding brought by Petitioner against four tenants occupying one floor. The Respondents occupy different portions of the floor under a net lease which was issued in 1978. It appears that Respondents Messick and Teare were the original tenants of the lease agreement and they later assigned the lease to Defendant Tribeca Audio.
Respondent Living Room moves, in the instant motion, to dismiss the petition as being jurisdictionally defective.
Respondent Living Room contends that the premises in issue is an interim multiple dwelling and that the failure of Petitioner to allege in the petition compliance with all of the requirements of Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law makes the petition jurisdictionally defective and warrants its dismissal.
The petition does allege that a portion of the premises is subject to the regulation of the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law art. 7-C). Petitioner concedes that in 1986, the Loft Board found that Respondent Teare and the portion of the floor which was occupied by Respondent Messick are subject to the protection of the Loft Law.
The finding of the Loft Board that one of the tenants is under the protection of the Loft Law would make the premises an interim multiple dwelling by virtue of the definition of the term interim multiple dwelling. (MDL Section 281(1); Temple Court Assoc. v. Richardson, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 23, 1986, P. 6, Col. 5 (App. Term, 1st Jud. Depart.))
Section 281(1) provides that, "the term 'interim multiple dwelling' means any building or structure or portion thereof ...... which (i) at any time was occupied for manufacturing, commercial, or warehouse purposes; and (ii) lacks a certificate of compliance or occupancy pursuant to section three hundred one of this chapter; and (iii) on December first, nineteen hundred eighty-one was occupied for residential purposes since April first, nineteen hundred eighty as the residence or home of any three or more families living independently of one another."
Since the premises in issue is an interim multiple dwelling and contains three or more separate residential units, there is a requirement that the premises be registered as a multiple dwelling with HPD. The failure by the owner to comply with the registration requirements would bar the owner from recovering possession of the premises for nonpayment of rent for the period of such non-compliance. (MDL Sections 4(7) and 325(2); Administrative Code of the City of New York 27-2107(b); Mandel v. Pitkowsky, 102 Misc.2d 478, 425 N.Y.S.2d 926 (1979)).
Owners of interim or de facto multiple dwellings would technically be barred from the collection of rent from tenants since the residential use of commercial premises is in violation of the certificate of occupancy and the building cannot be properly registered with HPD.
In 1982, the Legislature in finding an alarming increase in the number of illegal conversions of commercial and manufacturing lofts to residential premises without compliance with building codes and laws which in turn affected the safety and welfare of many city dwellers, enacted the Loft Law. (MDL Article 7-C, L.1982, Ch. 349). The intention of the Legislature in enacting the Loft Law was to regulate the legalization of these buildings into residential premises in conjunction with the local zoning resolution and to establish a system for reasonable adjustment of residential rentals to assist in paying the costs of such legal conversion. (MDL Section 280).
Pursuant to the Loft Law, MDL Section 285(1) was enacted and provides:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section three hundred two or three hundred twenty-five of this chapter, the owner of an interim multiple dwelling may recover rent payable from residential occupants qualified for the protection of this article on or after April first, nineteen hundred eighty, and maintain an action or proceeding for possession of such premises for non-payment of rent, provided that he is in compliance with this article."
MDL Section 284 sets forth the owner obligations for the legal conversion of the interim multiple dwelling. This Section provides for the steps and timetable which the owner shall follow for such conversion and also provides for the registration of the loft building with the Loft Board.
Pursuant to MDL Section 285(1), an owner of an interim multiple dwelling who is in compliance with the provisions of the owner obligations under Section 284 shall be exempted from the registration requirements of MDL Section 325 and therefore, may maintain an action to recover rent.
However, the owner's compliance with Section 284 must be alleged in the petition before Petitioner can be exempted from MDL Section 325 and the failure to plead compliance with Section 284 would make the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re 49 Bleecker Inc.
...defense to the payment of rent by a commercial tenant. The Debtor has also cited to the decision in Tysons Assocs. v. Tribeca Audio Research, Inc., 140 Misc. 2d 38 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1988). In that case, a landlord filed a proceedingagainst four separate tenants, at least one of whom admit......
-
Spring Street Associates v. Reardon
...showing that the premises in which respondent presently occupies is for commercial use. The ruling in Tysons Associates v. Tribeca Audio Research, Inc., 140 Misc.2d 38, 530 N.Y.S.2d 447, which was rendered by this court is distinguishable from this case. In the Tribeca case, this Court held......