8491. In re Alan Schiffren, petap, v. Brian Lawlor, etc. res-res Himmelstein, McConnel, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, New York (Ronald S. Languedoc of counsel), for ap Gary R. Connor, New York (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for Brian Lawlor, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, res Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for 98 Riverside Drive, LLC, res Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered June 8, 2011, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of the final determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated January 5, 2010, deregulating the subject rent-stabilized apartment on luxury deregulation grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This court is called upon, once again, to consider the interplay of an owner’s participation in the J-51 tax benefit program (See RPTL 489; Administrative Code of the City of NY [RCNY] §11-243) with luxury deregulation of a rent-regulated dwelling unit (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of the City of NY] §26-504). It is undisputed that petitioner was a rent-stabilized tenant, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, when he first moved into the dwelling unit in September 1989. The owner subsequently obtained J-51 tax benefits, which have since expired. The issue raised on this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, a dwelling unit that was subject to rent regulation before an owner received J-51 tax benefits can be subject to luxury deregulation once those tax benefits expire. This question has not been previously resolved, either by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13 NY3d 270 [2009]) or in any of our later decisions.
