Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Maria Ressos, J.), entered April 5, 2005. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlord possession.

Final judgment affirmed without costs.

In this holdover summary proceeding, the court below properly found that landlord had made out its prima facie case and, as tenant insisted that a prior stipulation of settlement be vacated and a trial be held, properly entered a final judgment of possession in favor of landlord after the ensuing trial. There was no dispute that tenant occupied the subject premises on a month-to-month basis, with no lease. Such a tenancy is terminable within the City of New York upon 30 days' notice (see Real Property Law § 232-a), and there was no dispute that the required notice was properly served.

Tenant's sole argument that is properly before this court on appeal is her contention that landlord should not have been permitted to maintain the summary proceeding because the building is not properly registered as a multiple dwelling and instead is an illegal three-family dwelling without a certificate of occupancy for the basement premises that tenant occupies. This contention is without merit, as the lack of a proper multiple dwelling registration is not a jurisdictional bar to the maintenance of a holdover proceeding in which no money judgment is [*2]sought (see Czerwinski v Hayes, 8 Misc 3d 89 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; see also Bouwerie Lane Corp. v Black, 12 Misc 3d 122[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51167[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]; Chopra v Parkin, 7 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50645[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Although tenant protests that this holding allows noncomplying landlords the benefit of the holdover summary proceeding (over the more cumbersome ejectment action in Supreme Court), we rejected this line of argument in Czerwinski (8 Misc 3d at 92). Indeed, the public safety interests at issue in the registration requirements will hardly be advanced by forcing landlords into lengthier plenary actions in Supreme Court while tenants remain in illegal premises in the meantime, the result apparently desired by tenant herein.

Tenant's remaining contentions are not reviewable upon this appeal or are without merit.

Pesce, P.J., and Golia, J., concur.

Rios, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
MARIE ASPILAIRE,

Respondent,

-against-
MARIE ST. LOUIS,

Appellant.

Rios, J., concurs with the result in the following memorandum:

I concur on constraint of Czerwinski v Hayes (8 Misc 3d 89 [App Term, 2d & 11th
Jud Dists 2005]).
Decision Date: March 28, 2007