EQR 180 Riverside A, LLC v Chu

[*1] EQR 180 Riverside A, LLC v Chu 2009 NY Slip Op 50523(U) [23 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on March 26, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 26, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570843/07.

EQR 180 Riverside A, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Blossom Chu, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant, as limited by her brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), dated September 10, 2007, which granted landlord's motion to dismiss tenant's first and second affirmative defenses in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

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

Although an express agreement between a landlord and tenant that a preferential rent will continue throughout a tenancy is enforceable (see Colonnade Mtg., LLC. v Warner, 11 Misc 3d 52 [2006]; see also Matter of Pastrich v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 50 AD3d 384 [2008]), the underlying lease agreement here did not explicitly provide for a rent concession for the duration of the tenancy (see Cromwell v Ortega, 12 Misc 3d 141[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51387[U] [2006]). Thus, landlord was entitled to discontinue the preferential rent and offer tenant a renewal lease that charged the previously established legal regulated rent (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR]
§ 2521.2[b]; Matter of Davis v Roldan, 54 AD3d 944 [2009]; Matter of Coffina v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 18 Misc 3d 1106[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52429[U] [2007]). We reject tenant's challenge to the validity of Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2521.2, inasmuch as there has been no showing that the regulation "is so lacking in reason for its promulgation that it is essentially arbitrary" (see Versailles Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 76 NY2d 325, 328 [1990]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 26, 2009