The crux of the impasse involved here rests on HPD’s veto power over any Housing Court proposal for enforcement of housing standards under subdivision (c) of section 110 of the New York City Civil Court Act, which provides: "in the event any such proposed remedy * * * entails the expenditure of monies appropriated by the city, other than for the utilization and deployment of personnel and services incidental thereto, the court * * * shall not employ such proposed remedy * * * if such department shall advise the court in writing * * * of the reasons such order should not be issued”. Moreover, under section 778 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, a HPD administrator appointment is subject to its consent in writing.
If this power is exercised negatively by HPD than uninhabitable conditions, urban blight and abandonment may be perpetuated; the city and State public policy may be thwarted; this court of exclusive housing summary jurisdiction may be paralyzed; the credibility of public officials and government is eroded; and more significantly tenants are doomed to live in uninhabitable housing.
The extent of deterioration of the building and block, ac*50cording to HPD, negates any action for improvement admitting, thereby, an inability to enforce the law and implement public policy.
A flexible range of funding may be essential to obtain affirmative actions but a habitable housing preservation strategy is also essential in order for this court to achieve effective code enforcement and rehabilitation.