| West v B.C.R.E-90 W. St., LLC |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 03622 [161 AD3d 566] |
| May 17, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| William T. West et al.,Respondents-Appellants, v B.C.R.E-90 West Street, LLC, Appellant-Respondent, et al.,Defendant. |
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), forappellant-respondent.
Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph LLP, New York (Serge Josephof counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or aboutFebruary 1, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant B.C.R.E. 90 West Street,LLC's motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs' apartments are deregulated and notsubject to rent stabilization, and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment declaringthat plaintiffs' leases are subject to rent stabilization, and so declared, unanimously reversed, onthe law, without costs, and it is declared that plaintiffs' apartments were properlyderegulated.
For the reasons stated in Kuzmich v50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC (157 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2018]), buildings receivingtax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 421-g are subject to the luxuryvacancy decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of Cityof NY) § 26-504.2 (a).
The fact that the subject building additionally received low-interest mortgage financing fromthe New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC) does not bar application of thisluxury decontrol scheme. Defendant owner's regulatory agreement with HDC merely requiresthat all units in the building be "subject to Rent Stabilization . . . to the extentRent Stabilization applies to such Units" (emphasis added). The language of Private HousingFinance Law § 654-d (18) is substantially similar to that of Real Property Tax Law§ 421-g and should be interpreted consistently therewith. Concur—Friedman,J.P., Sweeny, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.