62 N.Y.S.3d 763
N.Y. City Civ. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner (owner since 1999) brought a month-to-month holdover against respondent Conty, who had occupied her unit under an oral tenancy for ~12–13 years.
- Dispute centered on whether the building contained five units (petitioner’s claim) or six-plus units historically (respondent’s claim), which affects rent-stabilization coverage.
- A 2006 Department of Buildings (DOB) violation documented multiple converted units/SROs and indicated 10 residential units in the building at that time.
- Conty testified she observed two units per floor when she first entered and offered the DOB violation; petitioner denied more than one unit on the first floor but acknowledged DOB violations existed and took years to correct them.
- Court found credibility contested, but the DOB violation was persuasive evidence of extra living units and petitioner’s long delay in correcting them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner) | Defendant's Argument (Conty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the building contained six or more residential units, triggering rent stabilization | Building has five units since purchase; only single units on first floor | Building historically had six+ units (two per floor originally); DOB violation shows extra units | Held: DOB evidence establishes six+ units existed; building is rent-stabilized |
| Whether landlord’s knowledge or creation of extra units is required for rent-stabilization coverage | Landlord did not create extra units; they argue lack of entitlement to stabilization | Coverage does not depend on landlord creation or knowledge of extra units | Held: Knowledge or creation not required; use as living space controls coverage |
| Effect of later correcting or removing extra units on rent-stabilized status | Reductions or corrections restore pre-existing non-stabilized status | Once six+ units exist, subsequent reductions do not negate stabilization of remaining units | Held: Even after reduction below six, rent-stabilized status continues for affected units |
| Validity of 30-day holdover where apartment is rent-stabilized | Holdover is appropriate to evict month-to-month tenant | If unit is rent-stabilized, holdover fails; eviction not permitted via 30-day holdover | Held: 30-day holdover cannot proceed; respondent is rent-stabilized and proceeding dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 198 (1st Dep't 1987) (once a building contains six or more units, all units become rent-stabilized)