The plaintiff contends that the defendants should be estopped from denying him the status of a rent-stabilized tenant and that their actions constituted a waiver of any claim that he was not a rent-stabilized tenant. However, coverage under a rent regulatory scheme is governed by statute and cannot be created by waiver or equitable estoppel ( see, 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet, 148 Misc 2d 971, 972, affd on other grounds 181 AD2d 488; Williams v Gallagher, NYU, Mar. 6, 1991, at 23, col 3; New York Univ. v Owens, NYLJ, June 6, 1990, at 21, col 2; Wilson v One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 AD2d 198). The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.
However, since Harris was not a party to that proceeding, its holding may not be used against him in this proceeding. In the present case, estoppel may not be used to create rights that did not exist in rent-regulated or subsidized housing (see, New York City Hous. Auth. v Sykes, 117 Misc.2d 293, 295-296; see also, 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet, 148 Misc.2d 971, 972). To hold otherwise would permit Mr. Harris to circumvent procedures for obtaining housing and give him a "preference to which [he] is not entitled" (New York City Hous. Auth. v Sykes, supra, at 296).
Rent stabilization coverage is a matter of statutory right and cannot be created by waiver or estoppel, see Matter ofTrainer v State of NY Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 162 AD3d 461 (1st Dept., 2018) ; Heller v Middagh St. Assoc., 4 AD3d 332 (2nd Dept., 2004). The fact that a lease is designated as rent stabilized does not automatically confer such status, see 512 East 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet, 148 Misc 2d 971,972 (App. Term, 1st Dept., 1991), aff'd on other grounds, 181 AD2d 488 (1st Dept., 1992) . Furthermore, the fact that the apartment continued to be registered as stabilized after the vacancy deregulation also does not act as creating regulatory status.
Coverage under a rent regulatory scheme is governed by statute and cannot be created by waiver or equitable estoppel. 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v. Grimmet, 148 Misc 2d 971, affd on other grounds 181 AD2d 488; Gregory v. Colonial DPC Corp. III, 234 AD2d 419 (2nd Dept., 1996). A waiver defense will not invalidate a statutory coverage exemption from the Rent Regulatory Laws .
The plaintiff contends that the defendants should be estopped from denying him the status of a rent-stabilized tenant and that their actions constituted a waiver of any claim that he was not a rent-stabilized tenant. However, coverage under a rent regulatory scheme is governed by statute and cannot be created by waiver or equitable estoppel ( see, 512 East 11th St. HDFC v. Grimmet, 148 Misc 2d 971, 972, 569 NYS2d 325 aff'd. on other grounds, 181 AD2d 488, 581 NYS2d 24; Williams v. Gallagher, NYLJ Mar. 6, 1991, at 23, col 3; New York Univ. v. Owens, NYLJ June 6, 1990, at 21, col 2; Wilson v. One Ten Duane St. Realty Co., 123 AD2d 198, 510 NYS2d 603).
This position, however, is contrary to the rule that "Coverage under a rent regulatory scheme is a matter of statutory right and cannot be created by waiver or estoppel [citation omitted]."512 East 11thStreet HDFC v. Grimmet, 148 Misc.2d 971, rev'd on other grounds 181 A.D.2d 488. Even where a tenant moves into a rent-stabilized apartment in reliance on the landlord's explicit promise that he will be given a renewal lease, no waiver results.
This position, however, is contrary to the rule that "Coverage under a rent regulatory scheme is a matter of statutory right and cannot be created by waiver or estoppel." (512 E. 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet, 148 Misc 2d 971, revd on other grounds 181 AD2d 488 [citation omitted].) Even where a tenant moves into a rent-stabilized apartment in reliance on the landlord's explicit promise that he will be given a renewal lease, no waiver results.
In support of this claim, petitioner cites to three cases, 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v. Grimmet ( 148 Misc.2d 971 [App Term, 1st Dept 1991]), Jerome Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. King ( 147 Misc.2d 162 [App Term, 1st Dept 1990]) and Webster Apts. Corp. v. Baglivo (NYLJ, Mar. 28, 1989, at 22, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]). These cases, however, are inapplicable here.