PER CURIAM OPINION
MEMORANDUM.
Final judgment reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for further proceedings.
Following landlord's concession that he lacked a proper certificate of occupancy for the subject premises, certified for single-family occupancy but operated as a de facto multiple dwelling (Multiple Residence Law §§ 4[4], 302[1]), the court denied landlord a money judgment, citingMultiple Dwelling Law §§ 302(1)(b) and 325(2), but granted him possession. However, the Multiple Dwelling Law does not apply to Yonkers (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 3[1]), and, thus, the absence of such a certificate does not preclude the commencement of a nonpayment proceeding (e.g., Brown v. Williams, 132 Misc.2d 438, 439). To the extent that Anilesh v. Williams (NYLJ, Nov. 15, 1995) and Bartolomeo v. Runco ( 162 Misc.2d 485) hold to the contrary, they should not be followed.
In any event, absent a default in rent, the court could not award landlord possession in a nonpayment proceeding (RPAPL 711[2]); Papaleo v Gentle, NYLJ, Oct. 9, 2001 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]). If, as tenant alleges, the court implicitly converted the nonpayment proceeding to a holdover proceeding, this also was inappropriate under the circumstances presented, which include the absence of a termination notice. Consent to such a conversion will not be inferred from these unrepresented litigants' silence (Luciano v. Pironti, NYLJ, May 30, 2001 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]).
Floyd, P.J. and Doyle, J., concur.
Colabella, J., taking no part.