Opinion
December 14, 2000.
Belkin Burden Wenig Goldman, L. L. P., New York City (Sherwin Belkin, Magda L. Cruz and Jay H. Berg of counsel), for appellants.
Anne Jaffe, New York City, for respondents.
Before: STANLEY PARNESS, P.J., WILLIAM J. DAVIS, LUCINDO SUAREZ, Justices.
Order dated November 4, 1999 (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
We agree that tenants' building contained six "housing accommodations" on the applicable base date and, in consequence, their apartments continue to remain subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code (Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.11[d]). The building consists of five stories, with one apartment on each, plus a cellar apartment. Pursuant to a 1962 Board of Standards and Appeals resolution, "the cellar apartment shall be occupied by the superintendent of the building only". It is not disputed that the apartment was continually occupied by superintendents for many years as a residence until its recent demolition. It thus qualified as a "housing accommodation" under the Code (§ 2520.6[a]), as that term has been broadly defined (see Gracecor Realty Co. v. Hargrove, 90 N.Y.2d 350) in furtherance of the remedial purpose of the rent regulation statutes. As noted by Civil Court, the exemption of the superintendent's apartment fran coverage (§ 2520.11[m]) does not detract from its status as a legal dwelling unit or housing accommodation which was occupied for living purposes (see, Matter of Gottlieb v. Mirabal, 123 A.D.2d 574 [inclusion of class B dwelling units, then exempt, toward determination of horizontal multiple dwelling status]).
We additionally note that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal has counted basement level apartments for purposes of determining whether a building has the requisite six housing accommodations for stabilization jurisdiction, notwithstanding that those apartments did not appear on the certificate of occupancy or were otherwise "illegal" (Matter of Gray, Docket No. CB410009R0; Matter of Pinson, Docket No. DA210126R0). DHCR's construction of the statutes it administers is generally entitled to deference (Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791).
Finally, any attempt by landlord to reduce the number of residential units subsequent to the base date does not effect an exemption from rent stabilization (Matter of Shubert v. DHCR, 162 A.D.2d 261).