Herman, 11 AD2d 643; Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206.)
Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (Alan G. Krams and Fay Leoussis of counsel), for New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, appellant.
I. The order compelling the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to issue the no harassment certificate required by the zoning resolution impermissibly usurped the authority given exclusively to HPD by the City’s zoning legislation. Moreover, the Supreme Court gave this relief to plaintiff even though it had not been requested in plaintiff’s complaint and HPD had no notice that the court intended to address this issue. (Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355; Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909; Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 NY2d 143; Matter of Kamhi v Planning Bd., 59 NY2d 385; Matter of Pelham Esplanade v Board of Trustees, 77 NY2d 66; Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20; Matter of Darswan, Inc. v Capellini, 69 AD2d 835; People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Val. Tit. & Mtge. Co. v Walker, 282 NY 400; Thayer v Baybutt, 29 AD2d 486, 24 NY2d 1018; Matter of Raskin v Murdock, 243 App Div 561.) II. The Supreme Court’s preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing HPD and the tenants from seeking enforcement of Housing Maintenance Code violations improperly prevent HPD and the Civil Court from performing their statutory functions regarding maintenance of housing standards in New York City. (New York Univ. v Arnold, 133 Misc 2d 1040; Berger-Tilles Leasing Corp. v York Assocs., 28 AD2d 1132, 22 NY2d 837; Smalls v Kaufmann, 112 AD2d 986; Antinelli v Toner, 74 AD2d 996; Werth v Gordon, 270 App Div 255.)