landlord to make repairs once a vacate order has been issued would make a mockery of
the mission of the housing part to maintain housing standards." Carrasquillo v. 197
Columbia Realty Corp., N.Y.L.J., Dec. 2, 1992, at 25:2 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co.).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Respondents' first affirmative defense.
Respondents' second affirmative defense raises laches, waiver, and estoppel,
defenses which Respondents would state if Petitioners and/or DOB prejudiced
Respondents by delaying [*5]in enforcing housing
standards, essentially consented to the state of the subject premises, or made
representations to Respondents that caused Respondents to refrain from maintaining the
subject premises.
A private party may not waive a right that affects the public interest or contravenes
statutory policy. Caravaggio v. Ret. Bd. of Teachers' Ret. Sys., 36 NY2d 348,
354 (1975), Berkovich v.
Mostovaya, 22 Misc 3d 91, 94 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2009). Nor can the
doctrines of estoppel, ratification, or laches thwart public policy. In re Wille, 61
Misc 2d 992, 1015 (S. Ct. NY Co.), aff'd, 31 AD2d 721 (1st Dept. 1968), aff'd,
25 NY2d 619 (1969), cert. denied sub nom. Intra Bank, S. A. v. Wille,
399 U.S. 910 (1970). Put another way, an individual cannot acquiesce in or ratify a
public wrong. Schneider v. Greater M. & S. Circuit, Inc., 144 Misc. 534,
541 (S. Ct. NY Co. 1932). With regard to DOB and HPD, estoppel is not available as a
remedy to prevent a governmental agency from discharging its statutory duties. W. Midtown Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v.
State of NY, Dep't of Health, Office of the Medicaid Inspector Gen., 31 NY3d
533, 541-42 (2018).
Numerous examples illustrate the principle that the kinds of equitable defenses