Matter of Benaresh v New York City Loft Bd.

Matter of Matter of Benaresh v New York City Loft Bd. 2012 NY Slip Op 01131 Decided on February 14, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 14, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6808 112629/10

[*1]In re Bahram Benaresh, Petitioner,

v

New York City Loft Board, et al., Respondents.




Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Joseph
Burden of counsel), for petitioner.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen
M. Griffin of counsel), for New York City Loft Board,
respondent.
Hartman, Ule, Rose & Ratner, LLP, New York (David Ratner
of counsel), for Annie Nocenti, respondent.

Determination of respondent New York City Loft Board, dated May 20, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, set the legal base rent under the 1982 Loft Law of a loft unit owned by petitioner and occupied by respondent Annie Nocenti, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Anil C. Singh, J.], entered February 2, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent's order setting the current base rent of the loft unit pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 286(2) and 29 RCNY § 2-06 was supported by substantial evidence, including a copy of the lease showing the rent most recently paid and accepted by the owner at the time of the enactment of the Loft Law (see Pell v Board of Educ. Of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230—231 [1974]). The petitioner, who commenced this rent dispute application, and who had the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate that the Loft Board's order reducing the tenant's rent was not valid because of the [*2]tenant's laches, waiver or estoppel. Nor does the statute of limitations of CPLR 213-a apply to units subject to Loft Board rent regulation (see Matter of Nur Ashki Jerrahi Community v New York City Loft Bd., 80 AD3d 323 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2012

CLERK