Opinion
No. 571001/13.
2014-08-8
BROWNSTONE PARTNERS, L.P., Petitioner–Landlord–Respondent, v. Mark Z. SLUPINSKI, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant, and “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” Respondents.
Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered August 26, 2013, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.
Present SCHOENFELD, J.P., SHULMAN, LING–COHAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Final judgment (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered August 26, 2013, affirmed, with $25 costs.
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that the combined building premises here at issue was substantially rehabilitated by landlord's predecessor after January 1, 1974, and thus exempt from rent stabilization ( see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11[e]; cf. Cassorla v. Foster, 2 Misc.3d 65 [2004] ). The trial evidence established that the prior owner spent over $319,000 to rehabilitate the combined building, so as to convert the “class B” (single room occupancy) multiple dwelling to a “class A” multiple dwelling and to qualify for a J–51 tax abatement ( see 155 Wooster, LLC v. Dalrymple, 21 Misc.3d 138[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 52306[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008]; see also Matter of Gonzalez v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal of the State of NY, 95 AD3d 681 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1003 [2013], rearg. denied 21 NY3d 938 [2013] ). Further, inasmuch as tenant took occupancy of the subject apartment pursuant to an unregulated lease many years after expiration of the J–51 tax abatement, the court properly determined that his tenancy was not subject to rent stabilization protection ( see Gersten v. 56th 7th Ave. LLC, 88 AD3d 189, 194 [2011], appeal withdrawn 18 NY3d 954 [2012]; Ogando v. Pamela Equities Corp., 44 AD3d 367 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008] ). The trial evidence also supports the court's finding that landlord's prosecution of the underlying eviction claim was not a pretext for discrimination.
Any error in the trial court's refusal to qualify tenant's witness, a general contractor, as an expert was harmless, since tenant's generalized offer of proof was insufficient to alert the court that the expert would have provided specific relevant evidence ( see Borghoff v. Borghoff, 8 AD3d 519 [2004] ). We have considered tenant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur