Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)

Citation: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Parent Document: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2016-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4334594/bartis-v-harbor-tech-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,289 chars

In addition to opposing the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiffs’ apartments are not subject to rent stabilization and for summary judgment dismissing the second through fourth causes of action and so much of the first cause of action as sought injunctive relief. The defendants maintained that the requirement that 75% of building-wide and apartment systems be replaced in order for there to be a finding of substantial rehabilitation was inapplicable where, as here, a building complex was converted from purely commercial space to residential use. The defendants further contended that, in any event, the work performed to convert the complex to residential use satisfied the 75% requirement. In support of its cross motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, the affidavit of its manager Eugene Mendlowits, discussed above. The defendant also submitted two prior determinations of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR), in which the DHCR found that two other buildings that had been converted from commercial to residential use after January 1, 1974 were exempt from rent stabilization. The Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition Papers

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text