owners to let their properties decay beyond the point of reasonable rehabilitation and thus
obtain an unwarranted windfall. Eyedent v. Vickers Mgmt., 150 AD2d 202, 205
(1st Dept. 1989), 153-155 Essex St. Tenants Ass'n, supra, 4 Misc 3d at
1008(A). See Also Lamberty, supra, 2013 N.Y.L.J. LEXIS at 7380,
citing HPD v. St. Thomas Equities Corp., 128 Misc 2d 645 (App. Term 2nd
& 11th Dept. 1985)(the so-called economic viability of a building may not be used
as a device, nor raised as a standard by which a landlord is permitted to escape its
non-waivable duty to maintain a property); Farrell, supra, 9 Misc 3d at
1118(A)(an owner's unclean hands precludes an economic infeasibility defense). An
application [*15]of this proposition to Respondents starts
with their purchase of the subject premises. The only witness with knowledge of
Respondents' business was unable to testify whether Respondents even inspected the
subject premises in 2012 prior to purchasing it for $4.5 million. As Respondents own
more than five properties, they can be deemed "experienced real estate operators",
Eyedent, supra, 150 AD2d at 204-05, for which a failure to inspect a
building that is more than 100 years old evinces an indifference to its condition
consistent with its later deplorable state. Id.
Even if Respondents did not inspect the subject premises before purchasing it, the
Property Manager visited the subject premises on numerous occasions over the years, and
agreed that the subject premises was in bad shape. Respondents' expert himself testified
to visible conditions like cracking masonry and a facade that was bowing and bulging. If
the visibility of the subject premises' maintenance needs was not enough, DOB gave