254 PAS Prop. LLC v Gamboa

[*1] 254 PAS Prop. LLC v Gamboa 2007 NY Slip Op 51429(U) [16 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on July 26, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 26, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ
570099/07.

254 PAS Property LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Rosemarie Gamboa, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), dated January 8, 2007, which granted tenant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), dated January 8, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Although the J51 tax abatement period has now expired, tenant's apartment nonetheless remains subject to rent stabilization because of the landlord's persistent failure to furnish tenant with a proper lease notification specifying that the apartment will be deregulated at the expiration of the tax abatement period (see East West Renovating Co. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 16 AD3d 166 [2005]; see also Lomagno v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 38 AD3d 897 [2007]; Spaeda v Bakirtjy, 189 Misc 2d 222 [2001]). The lease rider in question, appearing in tenant's original 1991 lease and subsequent renewals, failed to set forth the requisite notice of the "approximate date on which such benefit period is scheduled to expire" (Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-504[c]), inasmuch as it specified an expiration date of June 30, 1991, when, in fact, the actual expiration date of the abatement was June 30, 1997. We reject landlord's claim that this six-year discrepancy was de minimus, especially given the landlord's improper tender of a fair market lease in 1995. Further, events beyond the four-year Statute of Limitations may be considered to determine whether an apartment is regulated (East West Renovating Co. v Division of Hous. & Renewal, supra).

We have considered landlord's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 26, 2007