Opinion
15717 Index No. 156876/16 Case No. 2021–04477
04-12-2022
Rahamim KATTAN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 119 CHRISTOPHER LLC, care of Sabet Group, successor to WBS Associates, Defendant–Respondent.
Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC, New York (Zachary G. Meyer of counsel), for appellants. Golino Law Group, PLLC, New York (Brian W. Shaw of counsel), for respondent.
Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC, New York (Zachary G. Meyer of counsel), for appellants.
Golino Law Group, PLLC, New York (Brian W. Shaw of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2021, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment and/or to vacate the prior order denying the motion and granting summary judgment to defendant upon a search of the record, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs were not entitled to renewal since there was no change in the law after the prior order was issued ( CPLR 2221[e][2] ). Our decision in Reichenbach v. Jacin Invs. Corp., N.V., 190 A.D.3d 437, 140 N.Y.S.3d 17 (1st Dept. 2021) merely reaffirmed the existing law that an agreement to circumvent the Rent Stabilization Law is void and that parties are not the arbiters of whether an apartment is subject to rent stabilization ( id. at 438, 140 N.Y.S.3d 17 ; see also Kattan v. 119 Christopher LLC, 180 A.D.3d 566, 120 N.Y.S.3d 12 [1st Dept. 2020], lv dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 1004, 125 N.Y.S.3d 678, 149 N.E.3d 439 [2020] [affirming prior order]).
Plaintiffs were also not entitled to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) because they failed to establish any of the grounds for vacatur enumerated in the statute.