570078/13. APF 286 MAD LLC, GAN 286 MADISON, LLC, AND MADISON ASSOCIATES, LLC, pet-land-res, v. RIS REAL PROPERTIES, INC., res-ten-app, -andROBERT STROUGO, ESQ., NYC REALTY, WATTERS & SVETSKEY, LLP, DAVID M. BLUM, ESQ., ROBERT A. BURSTEIN, ESQ., KEITH E .WILSON, ESQ., MANOLO COSTA NEW YORK, AND XYZ, INC., res — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Judgment (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered July 25, 2013, affirmed, with $25 costs. Appeals from orders (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2013 and (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered January 2, 2013, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]). Appeal from order (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), dated August 20, 2013, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.
We sustain the final judgment issued in landlords’ favor upon the nonpayment petition. Tenant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging, inter alia, actual and constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, were properly dismissed on landlords’ summary judgment motion. Landlords’ entry into a portion of the demised premises for the purpose of repairing the building facade in response to a Department of Buildings’ notice of violation does not give rise to an abatement claim, and does not constitute an eviction, either actual or constructive, where, as here, the governing commercial lease agreement specifically authorized landlord to enter the demised premises to make “repairs, alterations, additions or improvements in or to any portion of the building,” including the exterior facade, and expressly precludes a rent abatement based on such entry (see Winston Churchill Owners Corp. v. Churchill Operating Corp., 193 AD2d 396 [1993]; Bijan Designer For Men, Inc. v. St. Regis Sheraton Corp., 142 Misc 2d 175 [1989] affd 150 AD2d 244 [1989]; Two Rector St. Corp. v. Bein, 226 App Div 73, 77 [1929]). Alterations to leased premises, made with the consent of the tenant, do not amount to an eviction, no matter how extensive or the degree of interference with the tenant’s occupancy (see Jackson v. Westminister House Owners, Inc., 24 AD3d 249 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]).
