and fairness'" of the governmental action. E. Enters., supra, 118 S. Ct. at
2146. As the Court will not countenance a landlord's emptying of a building by neglect,
Lacks v. City of NY, 156 Misc 2d 749, 754 (S. Ct. NY Co. 1992), citing HPD
v. 69 W. 38th St., N.Y.L.J., Aug. 5, 1987, at 11:1 (App. Term 1st Dept.),
HPD, supra, 128 Misc 2d at 645, nor will allow wrongdoers to profit
from their own unlawful conduct, Id. at 651, justice and fairness will not permit
Respondents to neglect the subject premises to the point of decrepitude and then use the
Takings Clause as a shield against the consequences of their neglect, particularly to the
detriment of rent-regulated tenants' interest in the maintenance of their homes and to the
detriment of the municipal agencies' charge to enforce standards of habitability in
housing. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Respondents' regulatory takings defense, the
tenth affirmative defense in Respondents' answer.
Order To Correct
As Petitioners and DOB have proven their prima facie case with regard to the Vacate
Order, and as the Court has dismissed all of Respondents' applicable defenses with
regard to the Vacate Order, the Court shall direct Respondents to correct the conditions
necessary to get the [*21]Vacate Order lifted. What
remains of Respondents' fifth affirmative is the extent that it states that any order to
correct should provide time frames commencing with the date of an order to correct, not
a date on a notice of violation and that fines are excessive. Any order to correct will
provide a time frame running from the date of this order, so while Respondents' fifth
affirmative defense does not preclude an order to correct, it prevails in that regard. The