purpose in maintaining housing standards is so interlaced with strong public policy
considerations that private parties may not contract to resolve disputes about housing
standards by arbitration). Public policy places the responsibility for maintenance of
housing standards on owners. MDL §78(1). Just as public policy precludes the
application of equitable defenses to causes of action such as nonprimary residence,
eviction on the ground of illegal trade or illegal construction, and zoning, defenses such
as laches, estoppel, and waiver do not apply to a cause of action for enforcement of
housing standards. Cf. D'Agostino v. Forty-Three E. Equities Corp., 12 Misc 3d
486, 489-90 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2006), aff'd on other grounds, 16 Misc 3d 59
(App. Term 1st Dept. 2007), Castillo v. Banner Grp. LLC, 63 Misc 3d 1235(A)(Civ. Ct.
NY Co. 2019)(the few defenses to an order to correct include lack of standing or
jurisdiction, [*6]completed repairs, that conditions are
not code violations, that notice of violation is facially insufficient, that the respondent is
no longer the owner, and economic infeasibility). As a matter of law, then, defenses of
laches, estoppel, and waiver do not apply to an order to correct in an HP proceeding and
the Court dismisses Respondents' second affirmative defense.
Respondents' third affirmative defense is that the petition fails to state a cause of
action. As noted above, Petitioners proved their causes of action with regard to the HP
proceeding. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Respondents' third affirmative
defense.
Respondents' fifth affirmative defense invokes a lack of access, which is not a
defense to an order to correct as a matter of law. D'Agostino, supra, 12