Justice Wayne Saitta

Defendants tenants moved for summary judgment against plaintiff landlord, who cross-moved for summary judgment on its ejection action against defendants. Landlord sought to eject defendants from the subject property alleging they used the building as residences, not commercial purposes for which it was lease, without plaintiff’s consent or knowledge. Defendants argued plaintiff was not entitled to eject them as the building was covered by the Loft Law and because the question of whether the building could be legalized for residential purposes should be referred to the Loft Board. The court stated based on the submitted evidence it was clear the building was an Interim Multiple Dwelling under Multiple Dwelling Law §281(5). It noted tenants showed they occupied the building for residential purposes during the 12 consecutive months between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 21, 2009 as required in §281(5). Further, the court ruled landlord’s motion to eject defendants must fails plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the residential use of the building could not be legalized, while tenants showed that the building was covered by the Loft Law. Hence, tenants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the ejectment action.