Judge Kimon Thermos

Landlord sought to recover possession of the subject apartment in this summary nonpayment proceeding pleading the premises was governed by the Rent Stabilization Law. Tenant Roman entered into a stipulation granting landlord a possessory and monetary judgment for rent arrears. He then moved to vacate the stipulation arguing it was improvidently entered into and he unintentionally waived substantial defenses, including rent overcharge. The court permitted both parties to amend their pleadings, vacated the stipulation and enabled Roman to defend landlord's new allegation the premises were not covered by rent regulation. Landlord moved to renew and reargue vacatur of the stipulation noting DHCR issued a new order, constituting new evidence, finding the premises was not subject to rent stabilization. The court denied renewal finding DHCR did not investigate or determine the issue whether deregulation was proper as such issue was not submitted for investigation. Yet, it granted reargument, but upheld its prior decision as the inquiry of why landlord did not register the June 2011 lease in July 2011 was not the sole basis for the relief granted, thus, there still remained sufficient grounds to find the apartment deregulation was questionable, entitling Roman to discovery.

Judge Kimon Thermos