In consolidated nonpayment summary proceedings, landlord appeals from three orders of the Civil Court, New York County, each dated June 27, 2003 (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.) which granted tenant's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and dismissed the petitions.

PER CURIAM:

Orders dated June 27, 2003 (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, and stipulation reinstated.

In these consolidated nonpayment summary proceedings, tenant failed to demonstrate legal cause to vacate the so-ordered settlement stipulation entered into upon the advice of counsel (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). To the extent that tenant relies upon a purported violation of that portion of the building's certificate of occupancy relating to the demised, ground-floor restaurant premises, such a violation does not relieve a commercial tenant of its fundamental obligation to pay rent (see Silver v Moe's Pizza, [*2]121 AD2d 376, 378 [1986]; cf. Multiple Dwelling Law § 302[1][b]). Further, the petitioner landlord's noncompliance with the registration requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law did not implicate the Civil Court's subject matter jurisdiction and was waived by the tenant by virtue of its execution of the settlement stipulation (see Meaders v Jones, 15 AD3d 490 [2005]). Also waived by the tenant were any nonjurisdictional, pleading defects in the underlying nonpayment petitions (see 433 W. Assocs v Murdock, 276 AD2d 360 [2000]). Nor is there merit to the tenant's belatedly raised contention that its attorney lacked authority to enter into the stipulation. "Assuming, arguendo, that [the attorney] lacked the real authority to do so, as a matter of law, [he] was certainly clothed with apparent authority and the [petitioner] reasonably relied upon that appearance of authority" (1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 749 [1991]), citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d at 231).

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Decision Date: May 09, 2005