BRONX DISTRICT ATTORNEY v. JACKSON (1997)

Order dated July 15, 1996 (Howard Sherman, J.) affirmed, without costs.

The office of the Bronx District Attorney obtained a final judgment of possession based upon the tenant's conduct of illegal narcotics trade in the subject premises (RPAPL § 715;  § 711[5] ).   Thereafter, landlord New York City Housing Authority, without participation of the District Attorney, commenced a nonpayment proceeding and accepted rent from the tenant pursuant to a stipulated settlement.   Civil Court properly denied tenant's motion to vacate the possessory judgment on the ground that the prosecution of the nonpayment had “vitiated” the holdover and “revived” the landlord-tenant relationship.

 The District Attorney's Office and the Housing Authority are independent entities with separate and distinct legal mandates;  the District Attorney is not the alter ego of the landlord in a proceeding under RPAPL § 715 (Kings County District Attorney's Office v. Freshley, 160 Misc.2d 302, 307, 608 N.Y.S.2d 788).   Thus, the Housing Authority's maintenance of a nonpayment proceeding and acceptance of rent did not affect the validity of the final judgment previously granted to the prosecutor or preclude its enforcement (cf. Ansonia Associates v. Pearlstein, 122 Misc.2d 566, 471 N.Y.S.2d 527).   Further, the Housing Authority, as landlord, cannot reinstate a tenancy that was rendered void by virtue of illegality or criminal conduct (Real Property Law § 231[1] ).  “Clearly, it is the legislative intent that the acceptance of rent by landlord or doing any act constituting waiver will have no effect in a proceeding for eviction based on illegal use ․ when the matter relates to a situation where the Legislature has established a public policy and the enforcement of such a waiver would violate the public policy” (Murphy v. Relaxation Plus Commodore, Ltd., 83 Misc.2d 838, 840, 373 N.Y.S.2d 793 [App.Term, 1st Dept.] ).

PER CURIAM.