In its recent decision in Acevedo v. The Piano Building, LLC, —AD 3d—, 891 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dep’t 2009), the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that even where a loft unit does not fall under the Loft Law, the unit will still be subject to rent stabilization under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (“ETPA”) if it can be legalized and otherwise falls under the statute. In so holding, the First Department declined to follow contrary Appellate Division, Second Department, authority. The source of the disagreement between the Departments is the proper interpretation of the Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in Wolinsky v. Kee Yip Realty Corp., 2 NY 3d 487, 779 N.Y.S.2d 812 (2004).
The Loft Law
The Loft Law (MDL Article 7-C) allows for the conversion of Interim Multiple Dwellings, which are defined as buildings once used for commercial, manufacturing or warehouse purposes which lack a residential certificate of occupancy. The Loft Law is generally limited to buildings that, on Dec. 1, 1981, had been occupied for residential purposes by three or more families living independently of each other since April 1, 1980, MDL §281(1). Once the legalization process is completed, loft tenants will become rent stabilized, provided the building contains six or more units.
‘Wolinsky’
This content has been archived.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]
