Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)

Citation: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Parent Document: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9328646/liggett-v-lew-realty-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,912 chars

Although plaintiff contends this is not a fair market rent case, she raises arguments implicating the issue of how rents are set. When a rent-controlled apartment becomes vacant, it becomes subject to the rent stabilization regime and the first rent is a market rent. Accordingly, once Brown vacated the apartment, it was no longer subject to rent control. At that point the first tenancy was subject to the RSL, which is what defendant and McKinney agreed to in the 2000 stipulation. Defendant was also obligated to provide McKinney with notice in writing by certified mail reciting of the initial legal regulated rent for the apartment and informing him that he had a right to file for an application for adjustment of the initial legal regulated rent within 90 days of the certified mailing (9 NYCRR 2523.1; Matter of Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD3d 105 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 961 [2017]). Regardless of any waiver, no Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) was timely filed. Instead, defendant and McKinney settled their disputes in a pending holdover proceeding. Furthermore, where a FMRA is filed four years or more after the first date the housing accommodation is no longer subject to rent control, the application "shall be dismissed" as untimely (9 NYCRR 2522.3[c], 2523.1; Matter of Park, 150 AD3d at 113-114; see also 200 Haven Owner, LLC v Drachman, 73 Misc 3d 1207[A] [Civ Ct, NY County 2021]]. While in certain circumstances the right to file an FMRA may pass on to the next tenant to occupy the apartment, those circumstances (improper notice to the first tenant, or evidence of fraud), are not present here (Matter of Park, 150 AD3d at 114). The time to challenge the initial legal regulated rent has long expired. Moreover, there are no allegations that a FMRA would have been successful in proving that the first stabilized rent exceeded the market value.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text