OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, which
The landlord’s petitions must be dismissed because they were jurisdictionally defective (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 325; Administrative Code of City of New York § D26-41.21 [b] [Housing Maintenance Code]; 22 NYCRR 2900.21 [f] [Rules of the Civil Court of the City of New York]). Inasmuch as the landlord failed to allege compliance with the Loft Law’s "owner obligations” (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 [2]), it is not entitled to rely on the Loft Law’s statutory exemption from the jurisdictional predicate of multiple dwelling registration (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 285 [1]). Consequently, we do not reach the landlord’s claim that its building is an "interim multiple dwelling” protected by the Loft Law, or its contention that the Loft Law may be applied to rent-controlled buildings.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Bellacosa taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.