Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Anthony J. Fiorella, Jr., J.), dated March 23, 2007. The order denied tenant's motion, inter alia, to be restored to possession (see 2007 NY Slip Op 51327[U]).

Order affirmed without costs.

Tenant was evicted on August 8, 2006 pursuant to a final judgment entered in this nonpayment proceeding on February 2, 2006. After being evicted, tenant brought on two applications seeking, among other things, to be restored to possession. In the
first, tenant contended that he should not have been evicted because he was in compliance with the payment terms of an August 1, 2006 order of the Civil Court conditionally vacating the warrant. Tenant's motion was denied following a hearing, and tenant did not appeal from that denial. Instead, he brought on the second application, by order to show cause dated November 2, 2006, asserting that he should be restored to possession because landlord's multiple dwelling registration (MDR) had lapsed on May 23, 2006. Tenant argued that, as a result of the lapse, it was improper for the court in its August 1, 2006 order to include payment of the June, July and August 2006 rent as a condition of vacatur of the warrant. In opposition to the motion, landlord [*2]showed, inter alia, that it had mailed its MDR to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in April 2006; that the MDR had been rejected as defective; that it had mailed a corrected form to HPD on May 25, 2006, which was not received; and that it had now submitted the MDR to HPD for the third time. Landlord also argued that once the defect was cured, tenant could not raise the issue of prior noncompliance. The Civil Court denied tenant's motion, and we affirm.

The final judgment, which was entered on February 2, 2006, was in all respects proper as there was then an MDR in effect and one had been in effect for the entire period for which arrears were awarded in the final judgment. Contrary to tenant's contention, section 27-2107 (b) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York did
not impose an automatic stay of the proceeding upon the expiration of the MDR. This provision states:
"An owner who is required to file a statement of registration under this article and who fails to file as required shall be denied the right to recover possession of the premises for nonpayment of rent during the period of noncompliance, and shall, in the discretion of the court, suffer a stay of proceedings to recover rents, during such period."
Since a stay was not automatically imposed and since the court was not advised of the lapsing of the MDR at the time it issued the order conditioning vacatur of the warrant upon payment of the rents which had accrued subsequent to the judgment, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion or otherwise acted improperly in so conditioning the warrant's vacatur (see generally 9 Montague Terrace Assoc. v Feuerer, 191 Misc 2d 18 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]), and its doing so affords no basis for restoring tenant to possession (cf. Furman v DeGeorge, 3 Misc 3d 139[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50561[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] [payments made by
a tenant as a condition of a stay are deemed to have been voluntarily paid and are not
recoverable even though the landlord was not in compliance with the MDR requirement]). Accordingly, the order denying tenant's motion to be restored to possession is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.

Golia, J., taking no part.