CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF UNIT PRECLUDED EXEMPTION FROM STABILIZATION
When her roommate vacated, the rent-stabilized tenant, C.D., asked that her new roommate, Z, be added to the lease. And while the landlord 200 Haven Owner, LLC, acquiesced, it took the position that the new contractual arrangement (with the pertinent increases and allowances) took the unit out of stabilization due to high rent deregulation (which was then $2500).
When the landlord subsequently commenced a holdover proceeding to remove the occupants, the latter asked for the proceeding’s dismissal. And when the New York County Civil Court sided with the tenants, the landlord appealed.
The Appellate Term, First Department, observed that in order to trigger high rent deregulation (which was applicable at the time), the unit had to be “vacant” and the governing monetary threshold met. Since the tenant was in “continuous possession,” there was no “hiatus” which triggered a right to deregulation here. As it noted in its decision, “While landlord may have qualified for a vacancy increase or allowance based on the addition of [Z] as cotenant, ‘any such eligibility would not have served to automatically exempt the apartment from regulation.’”
Think 200 Haven Owner could have used a safe haven there?
# # #
DECISION