Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC, 216 A.D.3d 585 (2023)

Citation: Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC, 216 A.D.3d 585 (2023)
Parent Document: Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC, 216 A.D.3d 585 (2023)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2023-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9402711/woodson-v-convent-1-llc/ ↗

Full Text

790 chars

Furthermore, plaintiffs' claim that these units were unlawfully "deregulated" after the base date is inaccurate. As the documents attached to plaintiffs' moving papers demonstrate, these units were registered with DHCR as rent stabilized throughout the period when defendants were receiving J-51 benefits, including on the base date and on the dates when each of the tenants executed their leases. Defendants offered each of the tenants in these units a lease that provided that "the apartment is subject to the Rent Stabilization Laws." That those leases may not have been in the form required by the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR § 2522.5[c][1]) may impose certain requirements on defendants (see 9 NYCRR § 2522.5[c][3]), but it does not constitute a "deregulation" of those units.

Other Sections in This Document (17)

Full Text