Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

proceeding, DHPD's putative failure to serve a notice of violation can constitute a basis for a
tenant's cause of action, not a defense to the tenant-initiated proceeding. (Vargas v 112 Suffolk St. Apt. Corp., 66
Misc 3d 1214[A] at *3). Thus, respondent's fifth and sixth affirmative defenses are
dismissed.

Respondent's seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses each attack aspects of the Order
to Repair/Vacate Order [No. 159757] allegedly posted and mailed on January 19, 2021, with an
effective date of January 20, 2021. Whether the Vacate Order is facially sufficient or whether it
was properly served on respondent are not defenses to the petition. While the amended petition
references the Vacate Order, it does not seek enforcement of the Vacate Order. Rather, petitioner
seeks correction of the conditions that gave rise to violations that gave rise to the Vacate Order.
Here, DHPD placed violations on or about January 11, 2021. As there is no dispute this court has
the authority to enter an order to correct violations, (see Allen v 219 24th Street LLC, 67 Misc 3d 1212[A] at 2 [Civ Ct,
New York County 2020]), the seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses are dismissed.

The tenth affirmative defense is essentially a rehash of respondent's fourth affirmative
defense. Again, that it might take months for proper permits to issue is not a defense to an order
to correct. This court has found that orders to correct have the effect of incentivizing owners in
acting promptly to, among other things, obtain required permits. (see Chambers v Old Stone Hill Road
Associates, 66 AD3d 944, 946, 889 NYS2d 598 [2nd Dept 2009] [in acting diligently to
obtain permits, party did not "disobey" court order]). Thus, the tenth affirmative defense is
dismissed.