Opinion
November 8, 2000
Gulielmetti Gesmer, P. C., New York city (Paul M. Gulielmetti and Todd A. Krichmar of counsel), for appellant.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P. C., New York City (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for Mazda Realty Associates, L. L. P., respondent.
HON. STANLEY PARNESS, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
Order entered November 3, 1999 (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
We agree with Civil Court that this nonprimary residence proceeding against a protected occupant of an interim multiple dwelling unit was properly commenced upon a thirty day notice of termination. Landlord was not required to serve a 120-150 day notice of nonrenewal because the transition from Loft Law coverage to Rent Stabilization Law coverage had not yet been completed, and respondent was not a tenant under a rent stabilized lease. The statutory scheme provides for the issuance of a final order issued by the Loft Board setting the initial regulated rent, after which ". . . each residential occupant qualified for protection pursuant to this article shall be offered a residential lease subject to the provisions . . . set forth in the emergency tenant protection act of 1974 . . ." (Multiple Dwelling Law § 286; see, 29 RCNY § 2-01 [3] [i]) Indisputably, the Loft Board has not issued a final rent order with respect to respondent's unit. Respondent's payment of permissible Rent Guidelines Board increases during the transition process (see, 29 RCNY § 2-01[i] [1]) did not create a rent stabilized lease or term which would implicate the notice of nonrenewal requisites applicable to matured rent stabilized tenancies. Moreover, any reference to respondent's stabilized status in isolated correspondence from landlord is not dispositive, since such coverage cannot be created by waiver or estoppel (Wilson v. One Ten Duane Street Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 198).
Respondent's argument that her interim multiple dwelling unit qualifies for protection under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 was not raised below and, in any event, is lacking in merit.
We affirm the denial of respondent's application for "reciprocal" discovery of landlord for the reasons stated in the decision below.