91 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LLC, pet-land-app, v. ESKIN, res-ten-res

91 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LLC, pet-land-app, v. ESKIN, res-ten-res — Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered June 4, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Sabrina B. Kraus, J. at Civil Court.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

91 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LLC, pet-land-app, v. ESKIN, res-ten-res — Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered June 4, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Sabrina B. Kraus, J. at Civil Court.

The summary judgment record establishes that, following the building’s conversion to cooperative ownership under a noneviction plan, tenant agreed to move from rent stabilized apartment 8E to apartment 9I — the latter apartment then temporarily exempt from stabilization protection based on the occupancy of the building’s superintendent — and that tenant’s relocation within the building came about at the prior landlord’s initiative and request so as to allow it to join apartments 8E and 8F to create a single unit in anticipation of a sale of the combined unit to a prospective purchaser. Based on this factual scenario, and in view of landlord’s failure to adduce any competent countervailing proof as to the cause or circumstances surrounding tenant’s relocation, we agree that tenant’s “rent-[stabilized] status transferred from the [eighth-] floor apartment to the [ninth-] floor apartment” (Saad v. Elmuza, 12 Misc 3d 57, 59 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006], citing Matter of Capone v. Weaver, 6 NY3d 307 [1959]; see and compare Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v. Hide Trading Corp., 13 Misc 2d 473 [App Term, 1st Dept 1958]). While the abovecited cases involved intra-building relocations by rent controlled, and not rent stabilized, tenants, we discern no significant distinction between the two regulatory schemes that would justify eschewing this sound precedent here, when to do so would result in the type of “disruptive practices” that both sets of rent laws were designed to avoid (see Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of New York] §26-501; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY §8581[1] [Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act]; see generally East 10th St. Assocs. v. Estate of Goldstein, 154 AD2d 142, 145 [1990]).

91 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LLC, pet-land-app, v. ESKIN, res-ten-res

91 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LLC, pet-land-app, v. ESKIN, res-ten-res — Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered June 4, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Sabrina B. Kraus, J. at Civil Court.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal