Since the Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Chazon v. Maugenest, 19 NY3d 410 (2012) (Chazon), it has long been understood that if a building which is a multiple dwelling (three units of more) does not have a certificate of occupancy (C/O), the owner may not maintain a non-payment proceeding for the recovery of rent.

Seems simple enough—until it's not.

Despite the seeming clarity of the rule, issues concerning a lack of a C/O have spawned considerable litigation throughout the various courts, often leading to a surprising number of disparate and conflicting results.