Matter of COB 3420 Broadway, LLC v. Towns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of COB 3420 Broadway, LLC v. Towns

2017 NY Slip Op 9258, 156 A.D.3d 577, 65 N.Y.S.3d 703

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 28, 2017

Docket5298 101835/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9258 (Matter of COB 3420 Broadway, LLC v. Towns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of COB 3420 Broadway, LLC v. Towns, 2017 NY Slip Op 9258, 156 A.D.3d 577, 65 N.Y.S.3d 703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 20, 2016, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York State Homes and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated August 13, 2015, that a rent overcharge occurred, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the determination annulled.

DHCR’s finding of a rent overcharge was based on its incorrect determination that respondent Merino’s apartment was rent stabilized. Upon vacancy of the apartment by the previous rent controlled tenant, the rent reached the $2,000 deregulation threshold due to a combination of vacancy and individual apartment improvement increases that were not challenged (see Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 149 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2017]; but see Altman v 285 W. Fourth, LLC, 127 AD3d 654 [1st Dept 2015]). Thus, the apartment qualified for exemption from rent stabilization, regardless of whether Merino was actually charged and paid a monthly rent that was less than the deregulation threshold (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] former § 2520.11 [r] [8] [i], now § 2520.11 [r] [10] [i]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 20, 2016, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York State Homes and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated August 13, 2015, that a rent overcharge occurred, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the determination annulled.

DHCR’s finding of a rent overcharge was based on its incorrect determination that respondent Merino’s apartment was rent stabilized. Upon vacancy of the apartment by the previous rent controlled tenant, the rent reached the $2,000 deregulation threshold due to a combination of vacancy and individual apartment improvement increases that were not challenged (see Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 149 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2017]; but see Altman v 285 W. Fourth, LLC, 127 AD3d 654 [1st Dept 2015]). Thus, the apartment qualified for exemption from rent stabilization, regardless of whether Merino was actually charged and paid a monthly rent that was less than the deregulation threshold (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] former § 2520.11 [r] [8] [i], now § 2520.11 [r] [10] [i]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9258, 156 A.D.3d 577, 65 N.Y.S.3d 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-cob-3420-broadway-llc-v-towns-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack