Plaintiffs, tenants of lower Manhattan apartments, sued their landlords (defendants). The defendants had received certain tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) §421-g, (§421-g) in connection with the conversion of their buildings from office use to residential use. They claimed that defendants failed to treat their apartments as rent stabilized (stabilized), notwithstanding that the defendants received benefits under §421-g. The defendants argued that the apartments are exempt from stabilization pursuant to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL).

The trial court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ cross-motions declaring that the apartments were subject to stabilization. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, declaring that the apartments had been properly deregulated and were not subject to stabilization.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]