Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)

Citation
Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
Parent Document
Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
1994-10-31

Full Text

1,585 chars
On appeal, the Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Association, Inc., and Michael Albano, et al. (hereinafter collectively Meadowbrook), contend that their counterclaims for breach of the warranty of habitability and lack of a Certificate of Occupancy should have precluded the Supreme Court from granting summary judgment in favor of Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. (hereinafter GMP), for eviction and possession without a hearing or trial. Under Real Property Law § 233 (b) (1), a mobile park owner may evict a mobile home tenant that "continues in possession of any portion of the premises after the expiration of his term without the permission of the mobile home park owner or operator”. Even assuming that the purported Building Code violations exist and that they are rent-impairing, their existence serves only as a defense to the recovery of rent, or the recovery of possession based upon nonpayment of rent (74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 368). The Building Code violations provide a standard for determining violations of the warranty *898of habitability (Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 327; Mantica R Corp. v Malone, 106 Misc 2d 953), and, as indicated above, the breach of warranty does not serve as a defense to a plaintiff’s right to recovery in a holdover proceeding. Accordingly, we find no merit to Meadowbrook’s contention that the branch of GMP’s summary judgment motion which was for eviction and possession should have been denied in light of their counterclaims of breach of the warranty of habitability and the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy.