In her recent decision in Columbus 95th Street LLC v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 4, 2009, at 39, col. 5, New York County Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger upheld a provision of the Rent Stabilization Code (“RSC”) which states that prior regulation under Mitchell-Lama does not, of itself, allow a landlord to obtain rent increases for “unique or peculiar” (“U/P”) circumstances under rent stabilization.
Background
Section 35(2) of Article II of the Private Housing Finance Law (commonly known as the Mitchell-Lama law) allows owners of Mitchell-Lama buildings to take their buildings out of Mitchell-Lama under certain enumerated circumstances. Such buildings—if constructed before Jan. 1, 1974—would then become subject to rent stabilization. Section 26-512 of the Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”) provides that the last rents charged under Mitchell-Lama shall become the first rents under rent stabilization.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
