DECISION/ORDERLicensee holdover proceedings Index Numbers L&T 89393/17, L&T 89394/17, L&T 89395/17, L&T 89396/17, L&T 89397/17, L&T 89398/17, L&T 89399/17, and L&T 89403/17 were consolidated under L&T 89390/17. They were brought by petitioner claiming a charitable exemption to the rent stabilization law. Petitioner was initially represented by counsel. However, by order of the Hon. Marcia Sikowitz of February 22, 2018, petitioner’s counsel was relieved. Petitioner never retained new counsel and did not appear on that or any subsequent calendared appearance despite multiple notifications made by the court, respondents’ counsel, and petitioner’s prior counsel. Respondents retained counsel1 and filed answers raising several affirmative defenses and counterclaims.The petition was dismissed due to petitioner’s nonappearance on May 24, 2018 and a trial or inquest was scheduled for respondents’ counterclaims by order of the Hon. Gary Marton. The specific counterclaim that is at issue at this time is whether respondents’ are entitled to rent stabilized leases as respondents’ claim the subject premises is comprised of more than six housing accommodations and the charitable exemption does not apply. The court adjourned the hearing/inquest multiple times to ensure petitioner was informed of the procedural posture and given the opportunity to appear. On July 27, 2018, again on petitioner’s default, this court issued an interim order to correct the HPD violations in the subject premises. The order noted the likelihood of adverse consequences regarding the rent regulation status if petitioner did not appear at the next court date.On September 14, 2018, the court conducted a hearing on respondents’ counterclaim in petitioner’s absence. The Court requested post-hearing memos of law. On the return date, petitioner again failed to appear and failed to submit any opposition to the counterclaim.After trial and review of the submissions and without opposition, the court finds that respondents have proven that there are more than six units in the building, the building was constructed prior to January 1, 1974, and that the petitioner is not operating the subject premises as a charitable purpose. Therefore the premises are subject to rent stabilization and the charitable exemption does not apply to them. Accordingly, respondents are entitled to rent stabilized leases. See, e.g. Robrish v. Watson, 48 Misc 3d 143(A) (App Term 2nd Dept 2015) (regarding the rent stabilization status of rent stabilization status of units in a rooming house); and, Boiko v. Higgins, 195 AD 2d 279 (Ap Div 1st Dept 1994) (regarding the lack of a charitable exemption).Therefore, respondents’ counterclaim for a finding that the premises are subject to the rent stabilization laws is granted.This constitutes the decision and order of the court.Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkDecember 10, 2018
