Matter of 37 W. Realty Co. v New York City Loft Bd.

Matter of 37 W. Realty Co. v New York City Loft Bd. 2010 NY Slip Op 02722 [72 AD3d 406] April 1, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010

In the Matter of 37 West Realty Company, Appellant,
v
New York City Loft Board, Respondent.

—[*1] Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Robert A. Jacobs of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered June 25, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition reinstated, without prejudice to the assertion of defenses.

The tenants whose units were specifically addressed in respondent's order, which reduced or vacated an administrative law judge's findings in their favor with regard to rent overcharges, were necessary parties whose rights may be directly and inequitably affected by the judgment (CPLR 1001 [a]). As respondent concedes, the tenants were indisputably subject to jurisdiction, and should be joined even if the limitations period has expired (see Windy Ridge Farm v Assessor of Town of Shandaken, 11 NY3d 725 [2008]), without prejudice to interposing such a defense (see Friedland v Hickox, 60 AD3d 426 [2009]). It is unnecessary at this point to consider the "relation back" doctrine. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.