Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 42 N.Y.3d 415 (2024)

Citation
Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 42 N.Y.3d 415 (2024)
Parent Document
Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 42 N.Y.3d 415 (2024)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2024-06-20

Full Text

1,278 chars
[*2]McKinney and Lew Realty settled that proceeding in 2000 through a so-ordered stipulation (stipulation), which provided that McKinney would take tenancy as the first rent-stabilized tenant of the apartment rather than maintaining the apartment as rent-controlled. Rent control and rent stabilization are both statutory mechanisms intended to "put[ ] a brake upon run-away rent increases" in New York City, though they operate differently (8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 27 NY2d 124, 136 [1970]; see also Braschi, 74 NY2d at 208). Rent control, which applies only to housing built before 1947, subjects rental units to "stringent controls," including strict limits on rent amounts and broad eviction protections (Sullivan v Brevard Assoc., 66 NY2d 489, 492-494 [1985]; 8200 Realty Corp., 27 NY2d at 129; Braschi, 74 NY2d at 209). Rent stabilization, by comparison, gives landlords more leeway to "increase rents within reasonable limits" (8200 Realty Corp., 27 NY2d at 136-137). When a rent-controlled unit becomes vacant, it is "automatically . . . subject to the less rigorous provisions of rent stabilization" (Braschi, 74 NY2d at 209, citing 9 NYCRR 2520.11 [a]; 2521.1 [a] [1]; see also Sullivan, 66 NY2d at 494 [rent control governs an "ever-decreasing number" of units]).