Judge Frances A. Ortiz

The petition alleged the subject premises—an alleged two-family house—was not subject to the rent control or stabilization law in this holdover proceeding, contending they were in a building with less than six dwelling units and rented by tenants after 1971. Tenants raised affirmative defenses, including a de facto rent stabilization defense. They alleged the premises had six or more units, seeking dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as there must be grounds to terminate a rent stabilized tenancy. Tenants' attorney visited the premises in 2016 and 2017 finding eight tenants granting her access to their units and two other empty units. Landlord argued summary judgment must be denied as the premises were not rent stabilized. Landlord claimed tenants were not given rent stabilized leases from its predecessor but from lessee, Roque, who illegally converted the premises to contain additional units while landlord was unaware. The court rejected the argument unavailing and incredible, stating such alleged lack of knowledge did not give rise to an exemption from rent stabilization. It concluded tenants submitted sufficient documentary evidence to support their motion based on de facto rent stabilization, warranting dismissal.