IN RE TRIBECA EQUITY PARTNERS, L.P., pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL res-res

2251. IN RE TRIBECA EQUITY PARTNERS, L.P., pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL res-res — Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for ap — Mark Lee Tyler, New York, for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, res — Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Nativ Winiarsky of counsel), for Michael Anglin, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered October 6, 2015, denying the petition seeking to annul the final determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated December 8, 2014, which denied petitioner's application for high income deregulation of the subject apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

2251. IN RE TRIBECA EQUITY PARTNERS, L.P., pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL res-res — Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for ap — Mark Lee Tyler, New York, for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, res — Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Nativ Winiarsky of counsel), for Michael Anglin, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered October 6, 2015, denying the petition seeking to annul the final determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated December 8, 2014, which denied petitioner’s application for high income deregulation of the subject apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

RPTL 421-a(2)(f)(i) expressly provides that units subject to rent regulation pursuant to its provisions may be decontrolled pursuant to the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993, which provides for high income rent deregulation (see Administrative Code of City of NY §§26-403.1 [rent control], 26-504.3 [rent stabilization]). RPTL 421-a(2)(f)(ii), on the other hand, makes no provision for high income deregulation for units enjoying tax benefits thereunder beginning after the effective date of July 3, 1984. Instead, under subsection (ii), units are deregulated upon expiration of the tax benefit, provided the requisite notices have been provided to the tenant, or else when the unit becomes vacant. Petitioner concedes that, since it failed to provide the requisite notice (see 9 NYCRR 2520.11[p][2]), under RPTL 421-a(2)(f)(ii), the apartment will not be subject to deregulation until the tenant vacates.

IN RE TRIBECA EQUITY PARTNERS, L.P., pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal