Landlord & Tenant Law

In building owner's declaratory judgment action, owner and tenant both appealed from Supreme Court's order declaring the apartment subject to rent stabilization, but denying owner's motion to dismiss tenant's claim for tortious interference with prospective economic relations. The Appellate Division modified to dismiss the tortious interference claim, holding that a prior appellate determination established that the apartment was subject to rent stabilization.

Tenant's father purchased the subject building in 1944. Fourteen years later, the father gave the tenant a lifetime leasehold interest in an apartment in the building. At that time the rent was set at $244.37, the same rent that continues to be registered with DHCR. At some point, tenant began subletting the apartment to Bozzi. In 1992, in a prior litigation between tenant and Bozzi, the Appellate Division held that the apartment became subject to rent stabilization in 1974. After that litigation, Bozzi and tenant entered into a so-ordered stipulation and discontinuance under the terms of which Bozzi would continue to occupy the apartment at rents stipulated in the sublease (which were higher than the stabilized rent), and the parties agreed that the apartment was exempt from rent stabilization. The last sublease to Bozzi expired in 2013. Four years earlier, in 2009, tenant and prior owner entered into a lease providing that the apartment was not subject to rent stabilization. The current owner of the building acquired title in 2011, and took the position that tenant had no right to sublease the apartment after Bozzi's lease expired because the apartment is not tenant's primary residence. Tenant contended that she had a contract right to unrestricted subletting.