Respondents raise do not apply regarding a matter of public policy. A tenant may not
invoke a waiver defense against a landlord when the tenant's default is serious enough to
implicate public policy, Charles Altenkirch & Son Inc. v. CDK Restaurant
Inc., N.Y.L.J. June 26, 1986 at 17:5 (App. Term 9th and 10th Dists.), or when such a
default adversely affects others, such as in the case of an illegal trade, business, or
manufacture, Sam & Joseph Sasson LLC v. Guy, 2018 N.Y.L.J. LEXIS
4293, *38 (Civ. Ct. NY Co.), citing Bel Air Leasing L.P. v. Kuperblum, 15 Misc 3d 986,
991 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2007), Hudsonview Co. v. Jenkins, 169 Misc 2d 389,
393 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1996) or when a tenant engages in illegal construction. 508
Columbus v. Beasley, 2010 NY Misc. LEXIS 7067, at *12 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2010).
Defenses of waiver, estoppel, and laches cannot abrogate the public policy requiring
rent-regulated tenants to maintain their apartments as their primary residences. Lenox Hill Hosp. v. Spitz, 1
Misc 3d 134(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2004), Kev Realty Co. v. Goldfarb,
N.Y.L.J., November 18, 1993, at 29:6 (App. Term 1st Dept.), citing Rose Assocs. v.
Weisenthal, N.Y.L.J., May 16, 1988, at 14:1 (App. Term 1st Dept.). Laches does not
apply to the enforcement of zoning or environmental restrictions as a matter of public
policy. Chevere v. City of NY, 31 Misc 3d 337, 350 (S. Ct. Richmond Co.
2010).
Public policy in New York requires the maintenance of housing standards.
See, e.g., MDL §2 (the establishment and maintenance of proper
housing standards requiring sufficient light, air, sanitation and protection from fire
hazards are essential to the public welfare). Cf. D'Agostino v. Forty-Three E.
Equities Corp., 16 Misc 3d 59, 60 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2007) (the broad public