city courts with injunctive powers to ensure compliance with
state and/or local housing codes pursuant to either Uniform
City Court Act § 209 (b) (4) or § 203 (c), the latter (applicable to
summary proceedings) requiring a finding that the utilization of
such powers would be more effective to accomplish compliance
with said codes or to protect and promote the public interest.
These amendments allow courts the opportunity to fashion eq-
uitable remedies in summary proceedings based on the facts
and circumstances of each case.
Based on this court’s review of all of the evidence, as well as
the court’s personal inspection of the property, this court
concludes that an order requiring the petitioner to repair the
subject property will be more effective to ensure compliance
with the Housing Code of the City of Auburn than issuing a
warrant to dispossess and allowing the City of Auburn to enforce
its violation notice in due course or abating the rent, since to
date the petitioner has failed to correct the violations as ordered
by the city and, apparently is unwilling to do so while the re-
spondent remains in possession of the property.
In addition, the condition of the building and its interior are
in such shape that it is in the public interest to have the viola-
tions corrected in a timely manner under judicial supervision.
The repair of the porch and exterior will positively impact the
curb appeal of the subject property thereby benefitting the
neighborhood and the repair of the interior will result in a rental
property in full compliance with the City of Auburn’s Housing
TARDIBONE v HOPKINS [17 Misc 3d 888] 891
Code, thereby providing code compliant rental property avail-
able for the respondent currently and the rental population in
the future.