In Altman v. 285 West Fourth, 127 AD3d 654 (1st Dept 2015), the First Department held (at least under the facts of that case) that in order to effectuate vacancy luxury deregulation, the legal regulated rent had to be above the statutory deregulation threshold at the time the outgoing tenant vacated. According to the First Department, the fact that the legal rent was above the statutory threshold at the time the incoming tenant moved in was of no moment.
Thereafter, the Appellate Term, First Department, called Altman into question in Aimco 322 East 61st Street v. Brosius, 2015 WL 7039052 (App Term 1st Dept). In addition, in Dixon v. 105 West 75th Street, 2015 WL 4744404 (Sup Ct NY Co), Justice Manuel J. Mendez held that Altman does not apply in circumstances where the landlord combines two apartments to create an apartment that did not previously exist, and then collected a rent over the deregulation threshold.
This content has been archived.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]
