From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

370 Manhattan Ave. v. Seitz

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 2008
20 Misc. 3d 9 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)

Opinion

No. 570277/06.

April 30, 2008.

APPEAL from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.) entered May 24, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, determined the legal regulated rent to be $705.56 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Horing Welikson Rosen, P.C., Willis ton Park ( Debra Genetin Tate of counsel), for appellant. Joel E. Abramson, P.C., New York City, for respondent.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Order, entered May 24, 2006, reversed to the extent appealed from, with $10 costs, and matter remanded to Civil Court for a calculation of the rent owed by tenant in accordance with this decision, and entry of a final judgment accordingly.

The evidence presented at the trial of this nonpayment summary proceeding established that tenant took occupancy of the subject stabilized apartment in March 1999. While the initial 1999 lease agreement did not specify that the $600 monthly rental amount reserved therein was a preferential rent, it is undisputed that landlord timely filed apartment registration statements with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal from 1999 through 2003, listing both the legal regulated rent and preferential rent, and that tenant was served with the registration statements. Tenant, without objecting to the rental amounts or the preferential rent designations, executed several renewal lease forms covering the period March 2000 through February 2004, each of which delineated the legal and preferential rent.

On these facts, where a series of renewal lease forms and apartment registration statements reflected the "preferential" status of tenant's rent, tenant may not be heard to argue that the rent that he paid without objection was not a preferential rent ( Matter of Coffina v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 18 Misc 3d 1106 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52429[U] [Bransten, J., 2007]). Under Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-511 (c) (14), landlord was entitled to offer a renewal lease that charged the "previously established" legal regulated rent. The legal regulated rent was "previously established" since it was listed on the renewal leases as well as landlord's annual registration statements ( see Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 NYCRR] § 2521.2 [b]). "Where the amount of rent set forth in the annual rent registration statement filed four years prior to the most recent registration statement is not challenged within four years of its filing, neither such rent nor service of any registration shall be subject to challenge at any time thereafter" (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516 [a]). Thus, tenant may not now challenge landlord's treatment of the rent as preferential, having "had notice that [landlord] treated his rent as a 'preferential rent' for at least four years" ( Matter of Coffina v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 18 Misc 3d 1106 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52429[U], *5 [2007]). Nor may tenant rely upon undated lease riders purporting to extend the preferential rent for the duration of tenant's occupancy since the riders were not executed by either party. Landlord, having met the statutory requirements for terminating the preferential rent, was entitled to charge the legal regulated rent upon renewal in the lease commencing March 1, 2004.

McKEON, P.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.


Summaries of

370 Manhattan Ave. v. Seitz

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 2008
20 Misc. 3d 9 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)
Case details for

370 Manhattan Ave. v. Seitz

Case Details

Full title:370 MANHATTAN AVE. CO., INC., Appellant, v. BRIAN SEITZ, Respondent

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 30, 2008

Citations

20 Misc. 3d 9 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28164
862 N.Y.S.2d 690

Citing Cases

NYC 107, LLC v. v N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Consequently, there is no basis for a retroactive increase. (See 370 Manhattan Ave. Co. v Seitz, 20 Misc 3d…

Mat. of Lex. House v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous.

al regulated rent had been previously established, and thus failed to meet its burden, DHCR's determination…