Robrish v Watson

[*1] Robrish v Watson 2015 NY Slip Op 51299(U) Decided on September 2, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-2092 K C

Barry Robrish, Respondent,

against

Mark Watson, Appellant, -and- "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE," Undertenants.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered June 19, 2013. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlord possession in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

Landlord commenced this holdover proceeding to recover the "top floor" apartment of a two-family house. At a nonjury trial, landlord conceded that, in 1993 or 1994, he had begun using the house as a "rooming house" and had rented 10 different rooms to 10 different individuals, including tenant. By the time of the trial, tenant was the only individual left living in the house. Tenant argued, among other things, that his tenancy was rent stabilized and that, since his tenancy had not been properly terminated and the proceeding had not been commenced in accordance with the applicable regulations, the petition should be dismissed. In a decision after trial, the Civil Court found that the house was a de facto multiple dwelling because a third apartment had illegally been created in the basement, but that the tenancy was not rent stabilized. A final judgment of possession was entered in landlord's favor.

The 10 different tenancies entered into by landlord with 10 different individuals for 10 different rooms in his house rendered the house subject to rent stabilization, as housing accommodations in buildings built before January 1, 1974 containing more than six units are subject thereto (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-504.1; Rent Stabilization Code [RSC] [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11). The RSC defines a housing accommodation as "[t]hat part of any building or structure, occupied or intended to be occupied by one or more individuals as a residence, home, dwelling unit or apartment" (RSC [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [a]). Under this definition, an individually rented room in a rooming house is a housing accommodation, and therefore, contrary to the Civil Court's decision, a building with six or more individually rented rooms is subject to rent stabilization, regardless of whether any structural [*2]changes were made to the premises (see Matter of Gracecor Realty Co. v Hargrove, 90 NY2d 350 [1997]). Nor is it of any consequence that the illegal use of the building has ended (see Rashid v Cancel, 9 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51585[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Thus, the petition should have been dismissed on the ground that landlord failed to serve the required rent stabilization notices.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach tenant's remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: September 02, 2015