IN RE JEAN LUC FIEVET pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD res-res

3310. IN RE JEAN LUC FIEVET pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD res-res — Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP, New York (Margaret B. Sandercock of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claude Platton of counsel), for New York City Loft Board, res — Smith & Shapiro, New York (Harry Shapiro of counsel), for L&B 59 Realty Co., LLC, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered February 4, 2015, denying the petition to annul a final determination of respondent New York City Loft Board, dated January 16, 2014, which found that the subject residential units, which qualified as Interim Multiple Dwellings under article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (the Loft Law) (Multiple Dwelling Law §281[1]), but were not subject to rent regulation upon the prior owner's purchase of the former tenant's fixtures and rights pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law §286(6) and (12), did not become subject to rent regulation by reason of the June 21, 2010 amendment of the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law §281[5]), 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.

3310. IN RE JEAN LUC FIEVET pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD res-res — Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP, New York (Margaret B. Sandercock of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claude Platton of counsel), for New York City Loft Board, res — Smith & Shapiro, New York (Harry Shapiro of counsel), for L&B 59 Realty Co., LLC, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered February 4, 2015, denying the petition to annul a final determination of respondent New York City Loft Board, dated January 16, 2014, which found that the subject residential units, which qualified as Interim Multiple Dwellings under article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (the Loft Law) (Multiple Dwelling Law §281[1]), but were not subject to rent regulation upon the prior owner’s purchase of the former tenant’s fixtures and rights pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law §286(6) and (12), did not become subject to rent regulation by reason of the June 21, 2010 amendment of the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law §281[5]), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Loft Board’s determination that petitioners’ units are not subject to rent regulation was rationally based on the record and not contrary to law (see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]; Matter of Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Bd., 104 AD2d 223, 224-225 [1st Dept 1984], affd 66 NY2d 298 [1985]).

IN RE JEAN LUC FIEVET pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal