Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Maria Milin, J.), dated June 7, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of tenant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding on the ground that the proceeding was barred by Multiple Dwelling Law § 302.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, landlord appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of tenant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the proceeding was barred by Multiple Dwelling Law § 302.

In support of the motion, tenant established, among other things, that, although the six-apartment building in which tenant's apartment is located was built before 1929, landlord had made alterations to the building by adding three illegal apartments thereto, one in the basement and two by subdividing existing apartments. Notwithstanding landlord's contention to the contrary, the addition of these apartments constituted substantial alterations to the building and the alterations were not removed during the period for which rent was sought. Thus, the building was required, under Multiple Dwelling Law § 301, to have a certificate of occupancy. Contrary to landlord's further contention, the lack of a certificate of occupancy precludes landlord's collection of rent in the entire building, not just in the illegally altered apartments (Multiple Dwelling Law § 302 [1] [b] see Sheila Props., Inc. v A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 AD3d 424 [2004] Jalinos v Ramkalup, 255 AD2d 293 [1998] Hutchison v Greski, 2002 NY Slip Op 40352[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]).

We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 28, 2014