In Ader v Guzman 2016 NY Slip Op 00137 Decided on January 13, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department, the Town Code provided (1) "no owner shall cause, permit or allow
the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit as a rental property without a
valid rental permit."; (2) "an application for a
rental permit shall be filed with the enforcement authority before the
term of the rental is to commence."; (3) a valid rental permit shall be a condition precedent to the
collection of rent;and (4) the penalties for violating this code include
monetary fines or imprisonment.
Under such a fact pattern, the court held:
"....the lease was rendered illegal and unenforceable as a
result of his violation of Town Code § 270. "The violation of a statute
which is merely malum prohibitum will not necessarily render a contract
illegal and unenforceable if that statute does not expressly provide
that its violation will deprive the parties of their right to sue under
the contract, and the denial of relief is wholly out of proportion to
the requirements of public policy" (R.A.C. Group, Inc. v Bd. of Educ.,
21 AD3d 243, 248; see Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d 549, 553; Lloyd
Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124, 127; Simaee v Levi, 22
AD3d 559, 562). Furthermore, "forfeitures by operation of law are
disfavored, particularly where a defaulting party seeks to raise
illegality as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the
public good' . . . Allowing parties to avoid their contractual
obligation is especially inappropriate where there are regulatory
sanctions and statutory penalties in place to redress violations of the
law" (Simaee v Levi, 22 AD3d at 562, quoting Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat
Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d at 128). The Court of Appeals has observed that,
"[w]here the procuring of a license is merely for the purpose of raising
revenue it would seem that acts performed without securing a license
would be valid. But where the statute looks beyond the question of
revenue and has for its purpose the protection of public health or
morals or the prevention of fraud, a non-compliance with its terms would
affect the legality of the business" (Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d at
553 [internal quotations marks omitted]; see Village Taxi Corp. v
Beltre, 91 AD3d 92, 99-100).
Here, as noted above, although Town Code § 270 is, in part, revenue
raising, the overriding concern of the statute is to protect the safety
and well-being of occupants of rental properties in the Town of
Southampton. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, it
would be against public policy to permit Guzman to retain the
plaintiffs' rental payments and to profit from his wrongdoing (see
R.A.C. Group, Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 21 AD3d at 248;
Schwartz v Torrenzano, 49 Misc 3d 943, 950-951)."