17 Maple Ave. Holding, LLC v Jackson

[*1] 17 Maple Ave. Holding, LLC v Jackson 2010 NY Slip Op 50220(U) [26 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on February 5, 2010 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 5, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2008-667 N C.

17 Maple Avenue Holding, LLC, Respondent,

against

Jacquelyn Jackson, Appellant, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE", Undertenants.

Appeal from a decision of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott Fairgrieve, J.), dated February 1, 2008, deemed from a final judgment of the same court entered December 23, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding (18 Misc 3d 1124[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50192[U]).

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, landlord seeks to recover possession of an apartment in a building that was previously determined by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to be exempt from rent regulation based on a post-1974 substantial rehabilitation (see Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2500.9 [e]). Tenant does not dispute that the building is exempt but contends that she is nevertheless entitled to be treated as a rent-stabilized tenant. She bases this contention on her claim that the principal of landlord's predecessor told her, before she signed the lease, that while she would not be subject to rent stabilization or Section 8, he would nevertheless abide by the "guidelines" and charge her the same rent as a rent-stabilized tenant. Tenant also relies on language in the lease which states that the apartment is subject to rent stabilization.

In our view, the District Court correctly awarded landlord a final judgment. Tenant's testimony as to her conversation with the prior owner's principal showed only that there was an agreement as to the amount of rent to be charged and was insufficient to establish that there was an agreement that she would have a right to renewal leases (cf. Carrano v Castro, 12 Misc 3d 5 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006] [a stipulation providing that the tenants would be entitled to all the rights of rent stabilization, including expressly renewal leases, would be enforced], affd 44 AD3d 1038 [2007]). In addition, the use by landlord of a lease which mistakenly stated that the apartment, which was exempt, was subject to rent stabilization did not [*2]render the apartment subject to regulation or entitle tenant to renewal leases once the lease expired (see Heller v Middagh St. Assoc., 4 AD3d 332 [2004]; 12-62 Realty Corp. v Scapula, 2 Misc 3d 132[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50132[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]; cf. Ruiz v Chwatt Assoc., 247 AD2d 308 [1998] [a landlord's mistaken registration of an apartment as rent stabilized over the years does not confer rent stabilization status]). We have examined tenant's other contentions and find them to be equally without merit.

Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 05, 2010