The court’s recommendation to have HPD appointed an article 7-A administrator under powers conferred by subdivision (c) of section 110 of the New York City Civil Court Act *47and section 778 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law was the sole remedy acceptable. However it was conditioned upon the tenants’ "co-operation” and agreement prospectively to pay rent directly to it, despite acknowledgment of uninhabitable conditions; the tenants’ right to prior rent abatement and the inadequacy of such payments to cover costs of any repairs for code compliance. In the absence of any HPD plan, proposal or monetary commitment to remove violations, either from rental or public funds, no tenant agreed. To this date, no expenditure of city funds, other than emergency repairs has been exercised or proposed by HPD or intended by it.
Code enforcement is directed solely at owners, HPD contends, and the exercise and choice of remedies are within its sole discretion. Nowhere does there exist a statute, argues HPD, which makes it responsible for maintaining abandoned but occupied private multiple dwellings.
For example, subdivision 5 of section 309 of the Multiple Dwelling Law states: "[i]f the department shall desire that a receiver be appointed” (emphasis mine). Likewise section 1970 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law provides: "The department * * * may institute a proceeding * * * for a judgment vesting in the city title to a multiple dwelling * * * which has been abandoned by the owner.”