Opinion
February 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
The action is brought by tenants in buildings acquired by defendant City and its Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) through in rem tax foreclosures, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages on account of HPD's issuance of vacate orders. Plaintiffs claim that defendants issued the vacate orders not because of the existence of conditions endangering their health and safety, but as a pretext to close the buildings down and, in some cases renovate them for higher income tenants under a Federally assisted program. Plaintiffs further allege, inter alia, that defendants are mismanaging the properties and allowing them to further deteriorate without making reasonable repairs so as to justify closure and their eviction.
Since plaintiffs' claims seek declaratory and injunctive relief and are directed generally at HPD's management of its in rem properties and alleged misuse of vacate orders to evade its obligations to tenants, the challenge is not in the nature of an article 78 proceeding (see, Tindell v. Koch, 164 A.D.2d 689, 696-697), and a six-year, not a four-month Statute of Limitations applies.
We agree with the IAS Court that the City, in its capacity as owner of in rem residential buildings, is bound by Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 and Housing Maintenance Code § 27-2005, which direct all "owners" of residential dwellings to keep their premises in "good repair", and that if repair work is economically feasible, no exemption from the mandates of these statutes can be implied from the City's authority to issue a vacate order when a building is unsafe (cf., City of New York v Rodriguez, 117 Misc.2d 986). There is no merit to the City's argument that Administrative Code § 26-301 (1) (e) grants it blanket, unfettered discretion to issue vacate orders terminating all statutory obligations to keep its in rem buildings in good repair. Such an interpretation would work a major modification of the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Housing Maintenance Code, in effect granting the municipal defendants an exemption therefrom, through mere implication (see, Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 188 A.D.2d 415, lv granted 82 N.Y.2d 652). That a legislative sponsor of section 26-301 may have expressed such an interpretation is not dispositive of legislative intent (see, Matter of Morse [Bank of Am.], 247 N.Y. 290, 302-303). Issues of fact exist as to whether the condition of the buildings is such as to endanger the life, health and safety of the occupants, as claimed by the municipal defendants, whether the actual cost to bring the buildings into statutory compliance renders repair work not economically feasible, and whether the City should be allowed to proceed if its neglect were the cause of the buildings' state of disrepair.
We have considered the respective parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.