Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)

Citation
Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)
Parent Document
Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2004-05-11

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text

1,300 chars
The dissent’s reading of section 143-b (5) is incompatible with the Spiegel Law’s framework. Section 143-b designates the public welfare department and its officials as the principal enforcement actors under the statute. It would be anomalous for the Legislature to fashion subdivision (5) as a private defense that tenants could invoke, independent of any agency action. Rather, section 143-b (5) is best understood as a means of shielding tenants from eviction when the public welfare department chooses to withhold rent, pursuant to its discretion under section 143-b (2). Indeed, the language of subdivision (5) itself suggests that agency action under section 143-b (2) is a condition precedent to a tenant’s invoking the section 143-b (5) defense. The Spiegel Law defense applies only when a building violation relating to “conditions which are dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to life or health” is the “basis for non-payment.” For the purposes of the Spiegel Law, however, agency action is required to determine the existence of a violation. Section 143-b (5) (c) provides that the “defenses provided herein . . . shall apply only with respect to violations reported to the appropriate public welfare department by the appropriate department or agency having jurisdiction over violations.”