| Altman v 285 W. Fourth, LLC |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03485 [127 AD3d 654] |
| April 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| Richard Altman, Appellant, v 285 West Fourth,LLC, Respondent. |
Lawrence W. Rader, New York, for appellant.
Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York (Joseph P. Mitchell of counsel), forrespondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M.Mills, J.), entered October 16, 2014, which, inter alia, granted defendant's cross motionfor summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint, and declaring thatplaintiff is not entitled to the protection of rent stabilization in connection with hisoccupancy of the subject apartment, and granted that branch of plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the counterclaims for sanctions and fraud, unanimouslymodified, on the law, to deny defendant's cross motion for summary judgment in itsentirety, grant summary judgment to plaintiff, declare that plaintiff's tenancy is entitled torent stabilization protection and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The matter isremanded for calculation of the amount of rent overcharge owed to plaintiff.
The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and declaring that theapartment is not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (see Administrative Codeof City of NY § 26-504.2 [a]). Although defendant was entitled to avacancy increase of 20% following the departure of the tenant of record, the increasecould not effectuate a deregulation of the apartment since the rent at the time of thetenant's vacatur did not exceed $2,000 (see Administrative Code§§ 26-504.2, 26-511[c] [5-a]; Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 62 AD3d 71, 77[1st Dept 2009], affd 13 NY3d 270, 280 [2009]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, both the 2005 stipulation and the 2007 agreementare void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy (see Drucker v Mauro, 30AD3d 37, 39-40 [1st Dept 2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 844 [2006]; 132132 LLC v Strasser, 24Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]). The2005 stipulation "purport[ed] to fix rent at a sum that exceeded the legal limit" under theRent Stabilization Law (RSL), since the monthly rent of $2,488.62 exceeded themaximum allowable rent (Jazilek v Abart Holdings LLC, 10 NY3d 943, 944 [2008]).Pursuant to the 2007 agreement, plaintiff agreed to "refrain from filing or making anyclaim of rent overcharge, fair market rent appeal, and any and all other conceivablejudicial or administrative proceedings challenging the non regulated status of the[apartment]" (2014 NY Slip Op 32702[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]). Sinceplaintiff was entitled to a rent-regulated apartment, he could not waive the protections ofthe RSL, absent satisfaction of the conditions for deregulation (see Gersten v 56 7th Ave.LLC, 88 AD3d 189, 199 [1st Dept 2011], appeal withdrawn 18 NY3d954 [2012]).
Defendant's counterclaims were properly dismissed since the record does not supporta finding that plaintiff engaged in any "frivolous" conduct within the meaning of 22NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) to warrant the imposition of sanctions (see Levy v CarolMgt. Corp., 260 AD2d 27, 34 [1st Dept 1999]), and in the absence of any validagreement, there is no basis to support defendant's fraud claim. We note, in any event,that punitive damages are generally not recoverable in an action for breach of contract,and may be awarded only where the complained [*2]ofconduct is directed at the public (see Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. ofU.S., 83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]).
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ. [PriorCase History: 2014 NY Slip Op 32702(U).]