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
Other Sections in This Document (77)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
Full Text
802 charsIn an order dated June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendant’s cross motion. The court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing that the complex was exempt from rent stabilization by demonstrating that its renovations had converted the complex from commercial to residential use, and that it had paid for a majority of the conversion costs. The court further found that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the complex was subject to rent stabilization. In this regard, the court reasoned that the 75% requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.11 did not apply where a commercial building was converted to residential use. We affirm. Discussion Whether the Apartments are Subject to Rent Stabilization