Landlord & Tenant Law

In an action by tenants for declaratory and injunctive relief, all parties appealed from Supreme Court's order and judgment determining that the subject building is not covered by rent stabilization, but denying costs and attorneys' fees to landlord. The Appellate Division modified to deny summary judgment to landlord, holding that questions remained about whether the subject building qualified as an interim multiple dwelling under the most recent amendment to the Loft Law.

Until 2010, the third floor of the subject building was a manufacturing space. Tenants allege that at that time, landlord's predecessor assisted them in converting the space to three residential apartments. In 2017, they brought this action for a declaration that their apartments were subject to the protections of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (ETPA) and the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). They also sought a declaration that landlord was prohibited from collecting rent so long as the building lacked a certificate of occupancy for residential use. In addition to seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, landlord sought costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the action pursuant to the terms of the tenants' leases. During the pendency of the action, one of the three tenants vacated the unit and surrendered rights of occupancy to the landlord. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to landlord declaring that the subject building was not subject to rent stabilization, and awarded landlord use and occupancy pendente lite, but denied attorneys' fees and costs. All parties appealed.