Opinion
6036 M–2255 Index 570253/16
06-28-2018
In re 233 E. 5TH ST., LLC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Craig SMITH, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York (David R. Michaeli of counsel), for appellants. Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for respondent.
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York (David R. Michaeli of counsel), for appellants.
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered December 13, 2016, which reversed an order of Civil Court, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), entered April 5, 2016, denying petitioner and landlord's motion for summary judgment and granting respondents tenants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover proceeding, reinstated the petition, and granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Appellate Term properly found that the vacancy allowance increase of 20% was added to the prior stabilized tenant's legal rent of $1,836, in order to determine that the subject apartment's rent exceeded $2,000, and thus was deregulated. Here, the vacancy by the prior tenant occurred in 2003, after the effective date of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, and Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 26–511(c)(5–a)(i) and 26–504.2(a) clearly state that the legal regulated rent includes any vacancy allowance (see Altman v. 285 W. Fourth LLC, 31 N.Y.3d 178, 75 N.Y.S.3d 465, 99 N.E.3d 858 [2018] ).
We have considered tenants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
M–2255—233 E. 5TH St. LLC v. Craig Smith
Motion for leave to file supplemental brief denied.